THE  LORIMER  CASE 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  JOSEPH  W.  BAILEY 


OR   TEXAS 


IN    THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


FEBRUARY   13  AND  14,  1911 


WASHINGTON 
1»11 

80595— 9«73 


SPEECH 


HON.     JOSEPH     W.      BAILEY. 


Monday,  February  13,  1911. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  relative  to  certain  charges  relating  to  the 
election  of  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  a  Senator  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  by 
the  legislature  of  that  State,  made  in  obedience  to  Senate  resolution 
264— 

Mr.  BAILEY  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  Before  addressing  myself  to  the  results  of 
this  investigation.  I  think  it  advisable  to  say  something  about 
the  methods  which  the  committee  employed  in  making  it.  I  am 
not  moved  to  do  this  by  any  objection  on  my  own  part  to  those 
methods,  or  because  I  doubt  in  the  least  that  they  were  best 
calculated  to  evolve  the  truth,  but  as  several  Senators,  and  par- 
ticularly the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  CUMMINS]  and  the  Sena- 
tor from  New  York  [Mr.  ROOT],  have  criticized  the  investigation 
as  lacking  in  thoroughness,  I  feel  that  in  justice  to  the  commit- 
tee I  ought  to  make  some  reply  to  that  criticism. 

I  can  easily  understand  how  a  Senator  who  feels  that  the 
testimony  elicited  by  the  committee  leaves  him  in  doubt  as  to 
his  duty  might  complain,  and  it  would  be  for  the  committee  to 
answer  whether  the  doubt  of  such  a  Senator  could  have  been 
removed  by  any  testimony  within  their  reach.  If  any  Senator 
should  describe  himself  as  in  that  mental  condition  and  he 
could  indicate  any  witness  who  might  _  enlighten  him  on  any 
disputed  point,  I  would,  without  hesitating  a  moment,  vote  to 
recommit  this  report  to  the  committee,  with  instructions  to  pro- 
cure such  additional  evidence.  But,  sir,  it  is  utterly  impossible 
for  me  to  comprehend  how  any  Senator  can_  complain  at  the 
committee  for  having  taken,  or  for  having  omitted  to  take,  any 
testimony,  and  then  in  the  next  breath  declare  that  on  this 
record  as  now  made  up  he  does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  a 
judgment  which  will  undo  what  the  legislature  of  a  great  State 
has  done,  deprive  Illinois,  for  a  time  at  least,  of  a  seat  in  the 
Senate,  and  drive  one  who  holds  the  commission  of  a  great 
Commonwealth  from  the  Senate  Chamber  with  a  stigma  upon 
his  name  which  neither  his  children  nor  his  children's  children 
can  outlive. 

But,  Mr.  President,  without  intending  to  be  offensive,  I  am 
constrained  to  believe  that  neither  the  criticism\  of  the  Sena- 
tor from  Iowa  nor  the  criticism  of  the  Senator  from  New 
York  against  the  committee  is  entitled  to  our  serious  consid- 
eration, because  their  speeches  show  that  they  have  not  studied 
this  record  with  sufficient  diligence  to  pass  an  intelligent  judg- 
ment upon  it.  I  say  that  because  in  both  of  their  speeches 
they  have  misstated  the  testimony  on  material  points,  and  I 

80595—9673 


know  that  neither  of  them  would  have  done  that  to  save  his 
own  seat  in  the  Senate,  and  much  less  would  either  have  done 
so  to  vacate  the  seat  of  another  Senator.  With  these  misstate- 
ments  of  the  testimony  before  me  and  knowing  the  high  char- 
acter of  the  Senators  who  have  made  them,  the  only  explana- 
tion possible -to  my  mind  is  that  they  are  due  to  a  lack  o'f 
familiarity  with  the  record.  Not  only,  Mr.  President,  were 
these  Senators  mistaken  as  to  the  language  and  the  effect  of 
certain  testimony,  but  the  Senator  from  New  York  was  mis- 
taken about  the  appearance  of  a  witness  whose  testimony  he 
deemed  essential.,  The  Senate  has  not  forgotten  that  in  enu- 
merating the  witnesses  whom  the  committee  ought  to  have  called 
before  it,  but  did  not,  the  Senator  from  New  York  included  Mr. 
Shurtleff,  the  speaker  of  the  Illinois  House  of  Representatives, 
and  he  did  not  leave  us  in  any  doubt  as  to  Mr.  Shurtleff's  im- 
portance as  a  witness,  because  to  give  emphasis  to  his  criticism 
against  the  committee  for  its  failure  to  call  him,  he  made  this 
statement : 

Mr.  President,  they  would  have  called  Mr.  Shurtleff,  the  speaker  of 
the  house,  who  was  the  leader  of  the  campaign  on  the  Republican  side  to 
secure  the  election  of  Mr.  LORIMER.  They  would  have  called  him,  be- 
cause the  testimony  shows  that  day  by  day  and  night  by  r.ight  he  was 
closeted  with  Mr.  LORIMER  and  with  Mr.  Lee  O'Neil  Browne. 

The  Senate  will  also  remember  that  the  Senator  from  New 
York  had  scarcely  concluded  that  criticism  when  he  was  inter- 
rupted by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  PAYNTER]  and  the 
Senator  from  South  Dakota  [Mr.  GAMBLE],  who  reminded  him 
that  this  record  shows  that  the  committee  did  call  the  honorable 
Mr.  Shurtleff  and  that  he  did  testify  touching  all  of  the  most 
important  matters  under  investigation. 

Not  only  did  the  Senator  from  New  York  complain  at  the 
committee  for  its  dereliction  in  respect  to  Mr.  Shurtleff,  but  he 
complained  also  that  it  did  not  call  the  Yarborough  brothers; 
and  here  again  I  find,  Mr.  President,  a  circumstance  which  com- 
pels me  to  believe  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  relied  upon 
somebody  else  to  examine  the  record  for  him,  because  a  lawyer 
of  his  great  ability  and  of  his  accuracy  could  not  have  over- 
looked the  fact  that  this  record  makes  its  own  explanation  of 
why  the  Yarborough  brothers  were  not  called.  Those  witnesses 
were  called  on  the  trial  of  Lee  O'Neil  Browne,  and  they  swore, 
corroborating  White,  that  they  were  in  White's  room  on  the 
night  of  May  24  when  Browne  called  there  and  took  White  to 
his  own  apartments,  where  he  made  the  corrupt  contract  with 
him  for  White's  vote. 

After  Sidney  Yarborough  had  sworn  to  that  as  a  fact,  the 
defense  called  a  number  of  witnesses  who  overwhelmingly 
contradicted  him.  One  of  those  witnesses  was  a  Mrs.  Ella  Gloss, 
who  swore  that  on  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May — which  was  the 
night  of  which  White  swore  before  the  committee  that  Yar- 
borough was  in  his  room  and  the  night  on  which  Yarborough 
himself  had  sworn  before  the  court  that  he  was  in^White's  room 
at  Springfield — Sidney  Yarborough  took  supper  in  her  home; 
that  he  took  breakfast  there  the  next  morning;  that  he  went  to 
Wheaton  that  day,  returned  that  night,  and  left  Chicago  on  the 
night  of  the  25th  day  of  May  for  the  city  of  Springfield. 

The  learned  attorney  in  that  case  interrogated  Mrs.  Gloss, 
as  he  did  before  the  committee,  about  Yarborough's  other  visits 
to  her  home.  She  said  that  he  had  visited  her  home  at  other 
80595 — 9673 


times,  and  when  asked  to  specify  them  she  could  not  do  so.  I 
freely  say  to  the  Senate  that  when  she  could  remember  this  par- 
ticular time  and  could  not  remember  the  other  times,  it  strongly 
discredited  her  testimony  with  me.  But  finally  they  asked  her 
how  it  happened  that  she  could  remember  this  particular  visit 
and  fix  the  day,  but  could  not  recall  the  other  Visits  of  Yar- 
borough to  her  home;  and  then  she  satisfactorily  explained  it 
by  saying  that  it  was  the  day  before  her  boy's  birthday  and  that 
the  little  fellow  had  been  begging  her  for  a  baseball  bat  and  a 
baseball  mitt,  and  Mr.  Yarborough  gave  him  25  cents  that  morn- 
ing with  which  to  buy  the  baseball  mitt  the  next  day.  Mr. 
President,  no  man  needs  any  further  confirmation  of  that  good 
woman's  story,  because  she  locates  the  day  by  a  circumstance 
which  never  fails  a  woman's  memory. 

But,  sir,  that  was  not  all.  The  defense  called  the  husband 
of  Mrs.  Gloss,  and  he  corroborated  his  wife's  testimony.  They 
also  called  a  street  car  conductor  by  the  name  of  Bell,  who 
testified  that  he  met  Gloss  and  Sidney  Yarborough  on  Monday, 
the  24th  day  of  May,  as  Gloss  and  Yarborough  were  on  their 
way  to  Gloss's  home.  In  order  to  discredit  Bell  they  demanded 
of  him  to  identify  Yarborough  in  the  crowded  courtroom  and 
he  did  it. 

Mrs.  Gloss  had  testified  that  at  her  table  Sidney  Yarborough 
had  declared  that  his  railroad  fare  did  not  cost  him  anything,  as 
he  rode  on  the  pass  of  Charles  White,  who  is  the  principal  wit- 
ness in  this  case,  and  who  had  known  Sidney  Yarborough  when 
they  both  lived  at  O'Fallon,  111.  The  conductor  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  train  which  left  Chicago  at  10  o'clock  on  the 
night  of  the  25th  of  May  was  called,  and  identified  a  coupon 
pass  which  he  had  punched  and  taken  up  on  his  train  that  night. 
The  clerk  of  the  assistant  to  the  president  of  the  Illinois  Cen- 
tral Railroad  was  called  and  required  to  bring  into  the  court  the 
coupon  passes  which  had  been  issued  to  and  used  in  the  name  of 
Charles  White.  He  brought  41  of  them,  and  he  was  required 
to  lay  those  coupons  on  a  table  in  the  open  court  with  their 
faces  down,  so  that  no  one  could  see  the  date,  and  only  the  sig- 
nature on  the  back  of  each  would  be  exposed.  They  called  on 
Mr.  Gloss,  who  claimed  to  know  the  handwriting  of  Sidney 
Yarborough,  to  pick  out  of  these  41  coupon  passes  bearing  the 
name  of  Charles  White  the  one  signed  by  Sidney  Yarborough. 
Gloss  picked  a  particular  coupon,  and  when  they  turned  its 
face  over  it  was  the  very  one  which  had  been  used  on  the 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  on  the  night  of  the  25th  of  May,  thus 
corroborating  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Gloss,  and  contradicting  absolutely 
and  beyond  all  question  the  testimony  of  Sidney  Yarborough. 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  still  another  circumstance  which 
I  am  surprised  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  has  overlooked. 
When  they  had  White  on  the  stand  and  under  direct  examina- 
tion they  did  not  ask  him  who  was  in  his  room  that  night  when 
Browne  repaired  to  his  apartments  for  the  purpose  of  making 
the  bribery  contract  with  him.  They  had  asked  him  that  ques- 
tion on  the  trial  of  Browne,  and  he  had  answered  that  the  Yar- 
borough brothers  were  in  his  room;  but  he  had  been  so  com- 
pletely discredited  and  contradicted  that  the  attorneys  for  the 
petitioners  in  this  case  did  not  dare  to  repeat  that  question;  and 
when  the  attorney  for  Senator  LORIMER  asked  him  who  was  in 
80595— 9G73 


his  room  the  attorney  for  the  petitioner  objected.  Exactly  how 
he  could  have  expected  his  objection  to  be  sustained  I  have 
not  been  able  to  understand,  because  it  was  clearly  compe- 
tent under  the  strictest  rules  of  evidence;  and  over  the  pro- 
test of  the  attorney  for  the  prosecution  White  answered  the 
question,  and  again  said  that  the  Yarboroughs,  both  Otis  and 
Sidney,  were  in  his  room.  Then  Gloss  and  Mrs.  Gloss,  and  Bell, 
the  street  car  conductor,  and  the  conductor  of  the  Illinois  Cen- 
tral Railroad,  and  the  clerk  of  the  assistant  to  the  president  of 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  were  all  called  and  testified  before 
this  committee  what  I  have  just  related. 

Mr.  President,  could  any  Senator  complain  at  the  committee 
for  not  calling  a  witness  like  that  and  under  those  circum- 
stances? The  prosecution  called  him  in  the  court  below,  and  he 
was  so  thoroughly  discredited  that  they  abandoned  him.  But 
when  White  was  compelled  to  answer  that  question  before  the 
committee,  he  perfectly  understood  that  if  he  made  a  different 
answer  he  would  be  contradicted  by  his  testimony  given  in  the 
court  on  the  Browne  trial,  and  though  he  knew  that  he  would 
then  be  contradicted  by  other  witnesses  he  thought  that  better 
than  to  be  contradicted  by  his  own  testimony.  He  therefore 
swore  that  the  Yarboroughs  were  in  his  room  and  he  was 
again  contradicted,  as  he  and  Yarborough  both  had  been  on 
the  Browne  trial.  If  there  were  any  need  to  call  Sidney  Yar- 
borough, it  certainly  did  not  rest  with  the  committee  or  with 
Senator  LORIMER. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  also  complained  that  this  com- 
mittee did  not  call  the  clerk  of  the  Holstlaw  Bank,  at  luka,  111. ; 
and  in  all  fairness  I  must  say  that  if  I  had  been  a  member  of 
the  subcommittee  and  had  known  what  I  now  know  I  would 
have  thought  it  important  to  call  the  officers  of  that  bank.  But 
as  the  record  was  then  made  up  I  might  not  have  deemed  it 
important. 

THE    TESTIMONY. 

The  Senators  on  the  committee  who  have  preceded  me  have 
reviewed  the  testimony  with  such  ability  and  with  such  clear- 
ness that  I  would  not  deem  it  necessary  to  occupy  the  attention 
of  the  Senate  in  repeating  any  of  the  things  which  they  have 
said,  except  for  the  fact  that  it  has  been  misstated  in  a  way 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  most  remarkable,  when  we  remember 
that  Senators  were  speaking  from  a  printed  record.  I  easily 
understand  that  lawyers  engaged  in  the  trial  of  a  case,  and 
hearing  the  testimony  as  it  falls  from  the  lips  of  witnesses, 
when  they  come  to  discuss  it  before  the  court  may  differ  about 
it;  but  in  a  case  like  this,  where  the  words  as  they  fell  from 
the  lips  of  the  witnesses  were  taken  down  by  a  stenographer, 
transcribed  and  then  reduced  to  print,  it  passes  my  compre- 
hension, sir,  how  Senators  could  have  misstated  it.  Yet 
these  speeches  have  been  delivered  here,  impeaching  the  right  of 
Senator  LORIMER  to  his  seat,  are  filled  with  misleading  ex- 
tracts from  the  testimony,  as  I  shall  abundantly  show  before  I 
conclude. 

In  discussing  the  testimony  I  shall,  following  the  order  pur- 
sued  by   Senators   on  the   other   side,   first   consider   the  testi- 
mony of  the  three  members  of  the  legislature  who  were,  ac- 
cording to  the   Senator   from  New  York,  "approached."     The 
80595 — 9673 


first  witness  the  Senator  from  New  York  produced  in  support 
of  this  general  and  wholesale  charge  of  bribery  was  a  member  of 
the  legislature  by  the  name  of  Groves,  of  whom  he  speaks  as 
follows : 

Mr.  Groves,  a  reputable  and  unimpeached  witness,  testified  that 
shortly  before  the  election  a  former  member  of  the  legislature  came  to 
his  room  in  the  hotel,  approached  him  upon  the  subject  of  voting  for 
Mr.  LORIMER,  and  said  to  him  "It  might  be  a  good  thing  for  both  of 
us."  Groves  retorted  that  "there  is  not  money  enough  hi  Springfield 
to  buy  my  vote  for  LOEIMEE." 

Groves  does  testify  to  such  a  circumstance,  but  I  want  to 
show  the  Senate  what  else  this  "reputable  and  unimpeached 
witness"  swore  to,  and  then  I  will  leave  the  Senator  from  New 
York  to  take  care  of  his  reputation.  On  page  416  of  this  record 
Groves  testified : 

Q.  State  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Terrill? — A.  Mr. 
Terrill  told  me  he  got  a  thousand  dollars  for  voting  for  LORIMER. 

After  Groves  left  the  stand,  Terrill  was  called  and  swore  that 
he  did  not  vote  for  LORIMER  at  all;  that  he  had  voted  for  Hop- 
kins for  18  ballots,  and  then  left  Hopkins  and  voted  for  Lawrence 
Y.  Sherman  until  the  last  two  ballots,  when  he  again  returned  to 
Hopkins. 

The  next  morning  Groves  appeared  at  the  committee  room 
and  asked  to  correct  his  testimony,  and  he  then  said  that  what 
he  had  sworn  or  that  what  he  intended  to  swear  was  that 
Terrill  told  him  that  "there  was  a  thousand  dollars  or  some- 
thing like  that  in  sight  if  he  would  vote  for  LORIMER."  Groves 
testified  a  third  time  that  Terrill  had  told  him  that  he  "could 
have  earned  a  thousand  dollars  by  voting  for  LORIMER."  Groves 
also  testified  to  a  conversation  with  Representative  Shaw,  which 
I  think  the  latter's  testimony  abundantly  contradicts.  Mr. 
President,  if  any  Senator  wants  to  vouch  for  a  witness  who 
swears  as  recklessly  as  that,  he  can  have  a  monopoly  on  that 
proceeding. 

The  next  witness  introduced  to  us  by  the  Senator  from  New 
York  is  Mr.  Terrill,  for  whom  he  also  vouches  as  "unimpeached 
and  reputable." 

I  will  show  you  how  unimpeached  and  how  reputable  Terrill 
was.  Terrill  swears  that  he  asked  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Griffin,  who  solicited  him  to  vote  for  LORIMER,  what  there  was 
in  it,  and  that  Griffin  told  him,  "There  is  a  thousand  dollars 
anyway."  Griffin  swears  distinctly,  pointedly  and  ^unequivo- 
cally  that  he  never  told  Terrill  any  such  thing.  That  is  Griffin's 
oath  against  Terrill's  oath.  It  is  the  oath  of  a  man  who  swears 
that  he  did  not  offer  a  bribe  as  against  the  oath  of  a  man  who 
solicited  a  bribe,  although  it  is  fair  to  say  that  Terrill  testified 
that  when  he  asked  "what  there  was  in  it,"  he  was  actuated  by 
curiosity  and  not  by  avarice. 

Mr.  President,  any  man  who  will  take  this  testimony  and  read 
what  Griffin  said  and  read  who  Griffin  is  would  never  belreve 
that  he  was  sent  out  to  bribe  anybody.  But  that  is  not  all; 
that  is  not  the  end  of  this  "reputable  and  unimpeached  wit- 
ness." They  asked  Terrill,  who  testified  that  he  had  gone  to  the 
support  of  Sherman,  if  it  were  not  true  that  he  went  to  Sher- 
man as  a  sort  of  a  decoy,  pretending  to  be  for  him,  so  that 
having  secured  the  good  will  of  the  Sherman  men  he  might 
lead  some  of  them  back  to  the  support  of  Hopkins,  and  he 
80595 — 9673 


mildly  admitted  the  charge.     I  will  read  to  the  Senate  these 
questions  and  the  answers: 

Q.  You  were  an  adherent  of  former  Senator  Hopkins,  weren't  you? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  yon  were  there  actively  and  energetically  for  him,  weren't 
you? — A.  I  voted  the  first  18  times  for  Senator  Hopkins.  From  that 
I  went  to  Lawrence  Y.  Sherman,  and  stayed  there  until  the  last  two 
ballots,  and  then  went  back  to  Senator  Hopkins. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  all  of  the  time  an  adherent  of  former  Senator 
Hopkins,  even  when  you  were  voting  for  Lawrence  Sherman? — A.  Yes, 
sir ;  I  was. 

Q.  You  changed  your  voting  to  Sherman  to  try  and  draw  somebody 
else  out  from  there,  from  the  parties  they  were  voting  for,  so  that  you 
might  induce  them  to  go  to  Hopkins  when  you  went;  is  that  not  a 
fact? — A.  Yes;  that  is  partially  true;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  never  was  a  time  when  you  were  not  a  strong,  active, 
energetic,  and  strenuous  adherent  of  Senator  Hopkins? — A.  That  is 
true. 

Thus  this  "reputable  and  unimpeached  witness"  admits  under 
oath  that  he  was  in  the  Sherman  camp  as  a  spy,  or  at  least  as  a 
decoy.  Mr.  President,  if  men  of  that  kind  are  to  be  received  as 
refutable  and  unimpeached  witnesses,  I  have  nothing  to  say 
about  poor  White.  He  was  a  degenerate;  but  if  a  decoy  and  a 
spy  is  to  be  received  as  a  reputable  and  unimpeached  witness, 
then  poor  White  may  have  some  excuse  for  his  infamous  mis- 
conduct. 

The  third  man  who  was  "approached,"  according  to  the  Sen- 
ator from  New  York,  was  Mr.  Meyers,  a  Democratic  member  of 
the  house.  The  testimony  upon  which  that  charge  is  predi- 
cated is  this :  Mr.  Meyers  swore  that  just  before  the  roll  call 
on  which  LORIMER  was  elected,  Lee  O'Neil  Browne  sent  for  him; 
that  he  went  to  Browne's  seat,  and  that  Browne  urged  him  to 
vote  for  LORIMER.  Meyers  also  swears  that  Browne  said  to  him 
that  "there  are  some  good  State  jobs  to  give  away  and  the 
ready  necessary."  Meyers  further  swears  that  he  understood 
"the  ready  necessary"  to  mean  that  there  was  money  for  him 
if  he  would  vote*  for  LORIMER. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  believe  what  Meyers  says,  for  two 
reasons.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  wholly  incredible  that  Browne 
would  call  a  member  of  the  legislature  to  his  desk,  and  there  in 
full  view  of  everybody  attempt  to  bribe  him.  The  joint  as- 
sembly was  in  open  session,  and  if  Meyers  could  hear  the 
offer  of  a  bribe,  so  could  all  of  those  about  him.  That,  sir, 
is  not  the  way  a  corruptionist  would  operate.  In  the  second 
place,  I  do  not  believe  what  Meyers  has  said,  because  his  an- 
swer, and  his  only  answer  was,  "I  can't  help  it;  I  can't  go 
with  you."  Is  that  the  answer  which  an  honest  man  would 
make  to  an  attempt  to  bribe  him?  There  on  the  floor  of  the 
Illinois  legislature,  in  full  view  of  all  the  assembled  people,  is 
that  the  kind  of  an  answer  which  an  honest  man  would  make 
to  an  attempt  upon  his  honor? 

George  W.  Alschuler,  who  sat  one  row  behind  Lee  O  Neil 
Browne  and  three  seats  to  the  left  of  him,  swears  that  he  was 
watching  Browne  at  that  critical  moment,  and  that  Meyers  did 
not  go  to  his  seat.  If  there  were  no  testimony  about  it,  if 
Browne  did  not  deny  it— and  he  does  deny  it  in  the  most  em- 
phatic terms— if  Alschuler  did  not  say  it  was  not  true,  if  a 
page  assigned  to  duty  at  Browne's  desk,  and  who  stood  there 
through  a  roll  call  recording  the  vote,  did  not  swear  that  Meyers 
did  not  go  there,  I  would  not  believe  him  or  any  other  man  on 
80595 — 9673 


8 

earth,  whose  only  answer    to  an  attempt  to  bribe     him  was : 
"I  can't  go  with  you." 

Mr.  President,  I  now  dismiss  those  three  witnesses  upon  whose 
integrity  these  attempts  were  made  and  come  to  White,  Link, 
Beckemeyer  and  Holstlaw,  who  are  so  often  described  as  the 
men  who  have  admitted  that  they  were  bribed  to  vote  for 
LORIMER;  which  is  not  true  as  to  all  of  them,  as  I  will  show 
before  I  resume  my  seat. 

WHITE. 

The  first  witness  called  before  the  committee  was  Charles  A. 
White,  whose  testimony  I  do  not  intend  to  review.  By  his 
own  confession  he  is  a  perjurer  and  a  bribe  taker;  and  while 
such  a  man  might  tell  the  truth,  it  would  be  purely  accidental 
if  he  did.  The  only  thing  I  intend  to  do  with  reference  to 
White's  testimony  is  to  show  that  it  is  flatly  contradicted  by 
reputable  and  unimpeached  witnesses. 

Recognizing  that  his  story  needed  corroboration,  White  sought 
to  corroborate  it  by  locating  two  of  his  friends  in  his  room  on 
the  night  of  the  24th  of  May  when  Browne  went  there  for  the 
purpose  of  corrupting  him;  and  in  order  to  give  the  story  the 
appearance  of  truth,  he  even  testified  to  certain  comments  made 
by  Mr.  Browne  upon  the  occupancy  of  that  small  room  by 
three  men.  I  have  already,  in  another  connection,  shown  that 
White's  story  with  respect  to  the  Yarboroughs  being  in  his  room 
was  proved  to  be  so  utterly  false  that  even  the  prosecution  itself, 
after  one  experience -with  it  in  on  the  trial  of  Browne,  wholly 
abandoned  it.  White's*  testimony  is  not  only  discredited 
by  the  exposure  of  his  falsehood  with  respect  to  the  presence 
of  the  Yarboroughs  in  his  room  on  the  night  of  May  24,  but 
it  is  further  discredited  by  a  conversation  which  he  had  with 
Homer  E.  Shaw  before  the  election  of  LORIMER,  and  also  by  a 
conversation  which  he  had  with  Mr.  Thomas  Curran  after  the 
election  of  Mr.  LORIMER.  The  Senate  will  remember  that  White 
testified  that  he  was  induced  to  vote  for  LORIMER  by  a  compen- 
sation which  Browne  promised  him  on  the  night  of  the  24th 
of  May,  though  the  exact  amount  was  not  agreed  on  until  the 
next  night,  when  White  says  he  returned  to  Browne  for  a  con- 
ference in  order  that  a  definite  sum  should  be  agreed  on. 
Against  this  testimony  of  White  stands  the  testimony  of  Homer 
E.  Shaw,  and,  Mr.  President,  I  will  go  out  of  my  way  to  volun- 
teer the  statement  that  so  far  as  I  can  judge  by  the  printed 
page,  a  more  intelligent  and  a  more  truthful  witness  did  not  ap- 
pear before  the  committee.  This  is  the  same  Shaw  also  about 
whom  the  Senator  from  New  York  made  another  mistake  when 
he  declared  that — 

Mr.  Groves  testifies  also  to  a  conversation  before  the  election  with 
Mr.  Shaw,  one  of  the  men  who  voted  for  Mr.  LORIMER,  who  was  then 
about  to  vote  for  Mr.  LORIMER,  In  which  Mr.  Groves,  his  suspicions 
excited  by  the  attempt  made  upon  him — 

That  statement  is  another  evidence  that  the  Senator  from 
New  York  did  not  examine  this  record  with  that  care  which 
the  importance  of  our  decision  demands.  I  again  say  that  I 
know  he  would  not  misstate  the  testimony  of  any  witness  or 
misrepresent  the  vote  of  any  member  of  the  legislature ;  and  yet, 
sir,  Shaw  did  not  vote  for  LORIMER,  and  so  distinctly  testified 
when  he  was  on  the  witness  stand.  In  order  that  there  may  be 
80595 — 9673 


no  mistake  about  that,  let  me  read  the  very  first  questions  he 
was  asked  and  to  which  he  replied: 

Mr.  AUSTRIAN.    What  Is  you  full  name,  please? — A.  Homer  E.  Shaw. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.    Bement,  111. 

Q.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Shaw? — A.    I  am  a  banker. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  speak  loud  and  address  the  chairman. 
Were  you  a  member  of  the  Illinois  House  in  the  Forty-sixth  General 
Assembly? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.   Democrat. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  election  of  Mr.  LOEIMEE  on  the  26th  of 
May? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  LOEIMEB? — A.    I  did  not. 

Q.  At  any  time  were  you  approached  with  reference  to  voting  for 
Mr.  LORIMEK — at  any  time? — A,  I  believe  I  was  at  one  time  asked  If  I 
could  do  so. 

Q.  Anything  further? — A,   No,  sir. 

Further  on  in  his  testimony  Mr.  Shaw  was  asked  if  he  had 
ever  engaged  in  any  conversation  with  White  about  the  senato- 
rial election,  and  he  answered  in  the  affirmative,  stating  that 
the  conversation  in  question  had  occurred  about  a  week  before 
LORIMER  was  elected,  and  that  he  had  endeavored  during  that 
conversation  to  dissuade  White  from  voting  for  LORIMER.  In 
order  to  avoid  any  question  about  whether  or  not  I  am  accurate 
in  my  statement  on  this  particular  matter,  I  will  now  read  the 
questions  and  answers:' 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White? — A.   I  do. 

Q.  A  member  of  the  same  legislature? — A.    Yes,  sir. 

<Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  him  before  the  election  of  WILLIAM 
LCRIMER  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  When? — A.  Well,  I  would  not  attempt  to  fix  the  date,  but  mj 
recollection  is  about  a  week  before. 

Q.  What  was  the  conversation  ? — A.  The  conversation  was — the  mat- 
ter came  up — something  came  up,  as  I  remember  it — now,  it  is  quite  a 
little  while  ago,  and  I  would  not  like  to  state  positively  just  the  nature 
of  it,  but  I  think  that  White  made  this  remark  to  me :  That  if  he  got  a 
chance  to  vote  for  BILL  LORIMER  for  Senator  he  was  going  to  do  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  rest  of  it? — A.   Shall  I  go  ahead  and  state  it  all? 

Q.  Yes ;  tell  what  he  said  to  you  and  what  you  said  to  him. — A.  I 
said  to  him,  "Charlie,  I  think  you  will  make  a  great  mistake  if  you  do 
anything  of  the  sort."  I  said,  "You  know  you  are  a  young  man ;  you 
are  new  in  your  district,  and  undoubtedly  stand  high  with  the  people 
down  there  or  they  would  not  have  put  you  here,  and  I  believe  it  will  be 
your  political  death  if  you  do  anything  of  that  sort,"  and  I  told  him 
what  I  thought  would  be  the  condition  down  thefe  in  O'Fallon,  where 
he  came  from,  if  he  did  do  this.  I  told  him  I  did  not  believe  his  best 
oolitical  friends  would  speak  to  him  when  he  went  home,  and  I  re- 
member that  he  made  the  remark  that  he  "didn't  care  a  damn,"  but 
that  he  "intended  to  do  it  if  he  got  the  chance."  This,  to  my  best 
recollection,  was  about  a  week  before. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  about  the  locality  from  which  he 
came  being  in  southern  Ilnnois,  and  a  strong  Democratic  district? — A. 
I  did.  I  mentioned  the  fact  to  him  that  his  people  were  largely  foreign  ; 
they  were  French.  German,  and  Irish,  very  largely. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  White  after  that? — A.   I  did. 

Shaw's  testimony,  as  I  have  just  recited,  conclusively  dis- 
proves White's  statement  that  he  was  influenced  to  vote  for  LORI- 
MER by  Browne's  promise  to  pay  him  for  his  vote,  made  on  the 
night  of  the  24th  day  of  May.  But,  Mr.  President,  not  only 
does  this  conversation  with  Shaw  before  LORIMER  was  elected 
establish  the  perjury  of  White,  but  the  very  day  after  the 
election  he  made  statements  to  Mr.  Thomas  Curran  wHch  are 
equally  as  conclusive  of  his  perjury.  Mr.  Curran  was  chairman 
of  the  committee  on  Labor  and  Industrial  Affairs  and  a  Repub- 
lican. He  swears  that  on  the  day  after  Mr.  LORIMER  was  elected 
to  the  Senate  he  met  White  in  the  corridor  of  the  statehoiise  at 
Spriqgfield  and  that  among  other  things  White  asked  him  if 
80595 — 9673 


10 

"there  was  anything  doing  in  that  senatorship  election  of 
LORIMER  yesterday,"  and  expressed  a  belief  that  he  had  been 
"double-crossed."  In  order  that  Senators  may  have  before 
them  the  exact  language,  I  will  read  the  questions  and  answers : 

Q.  At  the  same  time  and  at  the  same  conversation  did  White  say  to 
you,  "Was  there  anything  doing  on  that  senatorshlp  election  of 
LORIMER  yesterday?" — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  say,  "Not  that  I  know  of.  I  heard  of  nothing  of 
the  kind.  You  are  a  Democrat  and  voted  for  him,  and  you  ought  to 
know  if  there  was.  Why  do  you  ask?" — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  our 
conversation. 

Q.  Did  White  then  say  to  you,  "Well,  I  don't  know ;  I  thought  there 
was.  I  thought  that  Browne  was  double  crossing  us.  I  thought  I  was 
being  double  crossed." — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say,  "I  know  nothing  about  It  at  all?  I  have  heard 
nothing?" — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Here  we  find  this  man  White  the  very  day  after  the  election 
inquiring  of  another  member  of  the  legislature,  a  Republican, 
who  had  also  voted  for  LORIMER,  whether  "there  was  anything 
doing,"  and  complaining  that  he  thought  he  had  been  "double- 
crossed."  Does  not  this,  Mr.  President,  assuming  that  Curran 
swore  the  truth,  show  that  White  perjured  himself  when  he 
swore  that  Browne  had  promised  to  pay  him  a  thousand  dollars 
to  vote  for  LORIMER?  If  Browne  had  made  such  a  promise  as 
that  White  would  not  have  been  in  the  corridors  of  the 
capitol  asking  if  there  "was  anything  doing"  and  complaining 
that  he  had  been  "double-crossed."  No,  sir;  Curran's  testimony 
as  to  what  occurred  between  him  and  White  on  the  27th  day  of 
May  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  White's  testimony  as  to  what 
occurred  between  him  and  Browne  on  the  night  of  the  24th  day 
of  May. 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  additional  testimony  to  disp'rove 
what  White  has  said.  Two  witnesses,  a  Mr.  Stermer,  the 
assistant  manager  of  the  Briggs  House  in  Chicago,  and  a  Mr. 
Zentner,  who  is  a  traveling  salesman,  both  testified  to  a  state- 
ment which  White  made  to  them  in  the  barroom  of  the  Briggs 
House  on  the  19th  of  August,  1909.  In  that  conversation  White 
indicated  his  plan  to  blackmail  LORIMER,  and  in  reply  to  the 
direct  question,  if  he  had  anything  on  them,  admitted  that  he 
did  not,  but  said: 

I  voted  for  LOBIMER,  and  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  I  can  say  I  got 
money  for  voting  for  LORIMER.  Do  you  suppose  they  can  stand  for  it 
a  moment?  I  guess  they  will  cough  up  when  I  say  the  word  to  them. 

Although,  Mr.  President,  there  is  nothing  in  this  record  to 
impeach  the  character  or  veracity  of  either  Stermer  or  Zentner, 
and  although  their  occupations  are  useful  and  honorable,  and 
although  their  story,  taken  in  connection  with  what  we  know  of 
White  and  what  he  had  said  to  others,  is  in  itself  entirely  probable, 
still,  sir,  the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  CUMMINS]  has  declared 
that  he  does  not  believe  one  word  of  their  testimony  and  gave 
his  reason  for  disbelieving  it.  Let  me  read  to  the  Senate  ex- 
actly what  the  Senator  from  Iowa  said: 

The  next  contradiction  comes  from  Stermer  and  Zentner.  Stenner, 
you  will  remember,  was  the  companion  of  Mr.  Browne  and  Mr.  White 
upon  these  visits  across  the  lake ;  visits  which  consumed  a  large  part 
of  these  profits,  not  only  from  the  ordinary  Jack  pot,  bat  from  the  elec- 
tion of  Mr.  LORIMER  as  well. 

The  Senator  from  Iowa  read  that  testimony  so  hastily  that  he 
described  Stermer  as  the  man     who  took  the  trip  across    the 
80595—9673 


11 

lake  with  White  and  Browne,  though  the  testimony  distinctly 
shows  that  it  was  Zentner.  That,  however,  is  not  vital,  and 
the  important  part  of  the  Senator's  statement  is  found  in  what 
follows,  when  he  said: 

They  say,  and  this  is  the  only  materiality  of  their  testimony,  that 
one  day  after  Mr.  White  and  Mr.  Browne  had  come  back  from  one  of 
these  trips,  White  was  drunk,  as  usual,  and  that  he  said  to  them,  after 
reciting  what  he  was  going  to  do,  that  they  then  immediately  asked 
him  whether  he  was  going  to  turn  against  his  friends,  and  then  asked 
him  whether  he  had  anything  on  them,  and  he  said,  "No,  I  have  noth- 
ing on  them,  but  I  am  out  for  what  is  in  it  for  White." 

I  do  not  believe  a  word  of  that  evidence  for  two  reasons.  In  the 
first  place,  the  testimony  shows  that  it  was  repeated  word  for  word 
without  variation  by  the  two  men.  More  than  that,  it  was  repeated 
word  for  word  before  the  committee  as  it  was  given  at  one  of  the  trials 
of  Mr.  Browne  on  his  indictment  for  bribery.  Every  man  here  knows 
that  that  can  not  be  honestly  done.  It  has  been  attempted  a  great 
many  times.  I  have  seen  it  attempted  a  great  many  times,  and  I  never 
saw  it  succeeed. 

I  was  following  the  argument  of  the  Senator  from  Iowa 
closely  when  he  made  that  declaration,  and  I  felt  impatient 
at  myself  to  think  that  I  had  overlooked  the  circumstance  which 
he  then  related.  I  thoroughly  agreed  with  him  in  thinking 
that  no  statements  of  the  same  transaction,  made  by  two 
different  men,  were  apt  to  be  word  for  word  alike  unless 
they  had  been  reduced  to  writing  and  committed  to  memory. 
I  therefore  felt  vexed  at  myself  for  having  attached  much 
weight  to  the  testimony  of  Stermer  and  Zentner.  Without 
any  thought  that  I  would  find  the  statement  of  the  Senator 
from  Iowa  incorrect,  and  purely  with  the  expectation  of  hav- 
ing it  confirmed,  the  very  first  thing  I  did  that  night  when  I 
sat  down  at  my  table  to  work,  was  to  take  this  volume  of  evi- 
dence and  turn  to  the  testimony  of  Stermer  and  Zentner.  You 
can  hardly  imagine  my  surprise  sir,  when  I  found  that,  so  far 
from  the  two  statements  being  identical,  word  for  word,  there 
were  just  such  discrepancies  between  them  as  tended  to  give 
them  credibility,  and  in  order  that  the  Senate  may  now  see 
how  badly  mistaken  the  Senator  from  Iowa  was  in  that  most 
confident  assertion,  I  will  point  out  several  instances  in  which 
the  two  statements  differ. 

Stermer's  statement  appears  on  page  533  of  the  printed  testi- 
mony and  Zentner's  on  page  541.  In  the  second  line  of  Stermer's 
statement  he  says  White  declared  that  he  "was  going  to  take 
a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter,"  while  Zentner  represents 
White  as  saying  that  he  was  "going  to  take  a  trip  that  fall." 
Zentner  omits  the  adjective  "big,"  which  was  used  by  Ster- 
mer, and  also  omits  the  words  "and  winter."  Again,  in  the 
very  next  clause  of  the  same  sentence  Stermer  declares  that 
White  said  that — 

First,  he  was  going  to  his  home,  to  his  home  In  O'Fallon,  and  from 
there  he  was  going  to  New  Orleans,  from  New  Orleans  to  Cuba,  from 
Cuba  to  New  York  City,  where  he  expected  to  have  a  big  time,  and 
then  he  would  come  back  home  again. 

As  Zentner  repeats  White's  statement,  it  was  that — 

He  was  going  to  his  home,  in  O'Fallon,  down  to  New  Orleans,  over 
to  Cuba,  up  to  New  York,  where  he  was  going  to  have  a  good  time,  and 
then  he  was  going  home. 

There  are  no  less  than  10  differences  in  this  part  of  a  single 
sentence,  and  similar   immaterial     discrepancies     run     through 
every  sentence.     A  close  examination  of  those  statements,  in- 
80595—9673 


12 

stead  of  discrediting  Stermer  and  Zentner,  will  serve  to 
strengthen  and  fortify  their  testimony,  and  I  am  sure  that  the 
Senator  from  Iowa,  after  having  his  attention  directed  to  his 
mistake,  will  cheerfully  withdraw  his  serious  reflection  upon 
those  two  witnesses;  and  in  order  that  he  may  see  his  mistake 
I  will  here  reproduce  the  two  statements : 
STERMER'S  STATEMENT. 

Q.  Will  you  just  repeat  the  conversation  once  more? — A.  He  said 
he  was  going  to  take  a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter ;  that  first  he 
was  going  home,  to  his  home  in  O'Fallon,  and  from  there  he  was 
going  to  New  Orleans,  from  New  Orleans  to  Cuba,  from  Cuba  to  New 
York  City,  where  he  expected  to  have  a  big  time,  and  then  he  would 
come  back  home  again.  One  of  us  asked  him,  or  said  to  him,  rather, 
that  he  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  take  a  trip  of  that  kind.  He 
said  that  he  didn't  have  the  money,  but  he  was  going  to  get  it,  and 
he  said  he  was  going  to  get  it  without  working  for  it,  too.  Mr. 
Zentner  asked  him  how  he  was  going  to  do  that.  Well,  he  says : 
"That  LOEIMER  crowd  and  our  old  friend,  Browne,  has  got  to  'come 
across'  good  and  strong  with  me  when  I  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going 
to  say  it,  too."  Mr.  Zentner  asked  him  if  he  had  anything  on  him,  or 
them,  rather.  He  says,  "No,  he  hadn't."  He  said  he  got  the  worst 
of  it  at  Springfield,  but  that  didn't  make  no  difference,  he  was  a 
Democrat,  and  had  voted  for  LORIMER,  and  he  could  say  that  he  got 
money  for  it.  He  said :  "Do  you  think  they  could  stand  for  that 
game?"  Mr.  Zentner  said:  "My  God,  you  wouldn't  treat  Browne 
that  way,  would  you?"  "Well,"  he  said,  "I  am  looking  out  for 
White,  and  besides,"  he  said,  "Browne  wouldn't  have  to  pay ;  the 
bunch  back  of  him  would  have  to  do  that ;  it  wouldn't  hurt  Browne." 
That  is  about  all  that  was  said  at  that  time. 

ZENTNER'S  STATEMENT. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  this  committee  exactly  that  conversation,  as 
you  remember  it,  and  as  you  have  testified  to  it  on  the  two  Browne 
trials? — A.  The  entire  conversation? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  We  were  talking  about  this  trip  that  we  just  re- 
turned from,  from  Michigan.  We  had  been  over  to  Michigan,  and  the 
little  experiences,  numerous  experiences  that  happened  on  this  trip, 
we  were  relating  them  to  Mr.  Stermer,  and  Mr.  Brown  said,  or  Mr. 
White  said,  then,  he  was  going  to  take  a  trip  that  fall,  he  was  going 
to  his  home  in  O'Fallon,  down  to  New  Orleans,  over  to  Cuba,  and  up 
to  New  York,  where  he  was  going  to  have  a  good  time,  and  then  he 
was  going  home,  and  one  of  us  asked  him,  we  said,  "You  must  have 
quite  a  lot  of  money  to  make  a  trip  like  that,  haven't  you,  Mr. 
White?"  He  said,  "No;  I  haven't,  but  I'm  going  to  get  it,  and  I 
am  going  to  get  it  without  working,  too."  I  asked  him  then,  I  said, 
"How  are  you  going  to  do  that?"  "Well,"  he  said,  "You  know  that 
LORIMER  crowd  and  their  old  pal  Browne  will  have  to  'come  across' 
when  I  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going  to  say  it,  too."  I  asked  him 
then  what  he  meant;  I  said,  "What  do  you  mean?"  "Well,"  he 
said,  "I  got  the  worst  of  it  down  at  Springfield.  I  am  a  Democrat  and 
I  voted  for  LORIMER  and  I  can  say  I  got  money  for  it,  can't  I? 
Can  they  stand  for  that  kind  of  game?"  I  said,  "God,  you  wouldn't 
treat  Browne  that  way?"  White  said,  "No;  I  am  looking  out  for 
White,  and  besides  Browne  wouldn't  have  to  stand  for  it,  anyway ;  it 
would  be  the  bunch  behind  him."  And  that  was  about  all  the  conver- 
sation. About  1  o'clock  they  closed  the  bar,  promptly  at  1,  and  we 
went  out  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  then  and  left  Mr.  Stermer. 

Mr.  President,  with  these  statements  before  the  Senate,  I 
will  leave  White  to  the  contempt  which  he  has  richly  earned, 
and  I  will  proceed  to  consider  the  testimony  of  Link. 

LINK. 

But  before  I  call  attention  to  that  part  of  it  which  I  con- 
sider pertinent  to  this  discussion  it  is  proper  for  me  to  remind 
the  Senate  that  both  Link  and  Beckemeyer  have  been  used  to 
corroborate  White,  and,  if  we  accept  their  testimony  as  true, 
they  have  corroborated  him  with  respect  to  the  payment  of 
$1,000  at  one  time  and  $900  at  another  time.  It  will  be  re- 
membered by  those  who  have  read  the  testimony  that  when 
White  offered  his  story  to  the  Chicago  Tribune  he  was  asked  if 
80595—9673 


13 

there  were  any  members  of  the  legislature  who  would  corrobo- 
rate it.  This  question  makes  it  plain,  sir,  that  those  who  were 
dealing  with  White  and  offering  him  a  price  to  advertise  his  in- 
famy to  the  world  understood  the  necessity  of  supporting  his 
testimony.  White  himself  swears  that  while  the  Tribune  people 
were  negotiating  with  him  for  his  story  they  asked  him  if  he 
could  be  corroborated,  as  appears  from  these  questions  and 
answers : 

Q  At  any  time ;  if  you  took  it  in  there  and  left  it  and  walked  out, 
and  then  went  back  again,  that  is  the  time  I  want ;  the  first  conver- 
sation you  had  with  him  after  he  knew  what  it  was. — A.  I  could  not 
quote  the  first  conversation  verbatim,  but  he  asked  me  if  there  were  any 
of  the  members  who  would  corroborate  my  story,  and  I  told  him  I  had 
no  one's  corrobbration  except  my  own  story. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  cooperation  or  corroboration  1 — A.    Corroboration. 

Q.  Cooperation? — A.   No,  sir;  corroboration. 

Q.  Corroboration? — A.    Yes,  sir. 

The  importance,  Mr.  President,  of  this  matter  is  that  it  em- 
phasizes the  Chicago  Tribune's  understanding  that  White's 
story  uncorroborated  would  impress  no  intelligent  person,  and 
they  therefore  stipulated  in  their  contract  with  him  that  he 
should  devote  himself,  so  far  as  called  upon  by  the  Tribune 
people,  to  the  work  of  corroborating  his  story.  It  was  to  meet 
the  necessity  for  this  corroboration  that  Link  and  Beckemeyer 
were  finally  prevailed  upon  to  swear  that  they  had  received 
money  in  sums  which  corresponded  to  the  payments  which 
White  swears  were  made  to  him. 

Sir,  I  have  my  own.  theory  of  Link's  testimony  with  reference 
to  the  $1,000  and  the  $900  which  he  said  were  paid  to  him  in 
St.  Louis  on  two  different  occasions.  The  testimony  shows 
that  Link  was  brought  to  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  carried  be- 
fore the  grand  jury  of  Cook  county,  but  did  not  furnish  the  tes- 
timony which  the  State's  Attorney  desired.  That  testimony, 
according  to  Link's  statement,  was  that  he  should  affirmatively 
answer  just  two  questions — the  one  that  he  had  received 
$1,000  from  Browne  and  the  other  that  he  had  received  $900 
from  Wilson.  When  before  the  grand  jury  the  first  time  Link 
would  not  give  that  testimony,  and  they  called  him  back  the 
second  time  to  the  grand  jury  room,  and  still  he  would  not 
testify  as  the  State's  Attorney  wanted  him  to  do,  and  then  they 
indicted  him  for  perjury.  With  this  indictment  in  their  hands, 
they  drew  a  picture  of  his  home  on  one  side  and  of  the  peni- 
tentiary on  the  other.  They  told  him  that  if  he  would  swear 
as  they  wanted  him  to  swear  they  would  dismiss  the  indictment 
for  perjury  and  let  him  go  home  a  free  man  without  any 
charges  resting  against  him.  But  they  told  him  that  if  he  did 
not  testify  as  they  desired,  they  would  send  him  to  the  peni- 
tentiary and  that  he  would  lose  his  farm,  and  even  lose  his 
wife.  Standing  there  with  the  door  of  the  penitentiary  opening 
before  him,  harried  and  distracted  by  the  power  and  the  threats 
of  the  State's  Attorney,  he  finally  yielded  and  cried  out  in  the 
anguish  of  his  narrow  soul,  "If  I  must  tell  a  lie,  I  will  do  it,  but 
I  do  not  want  to  dp  it."  In  that  frame  of  mind  they  took  the 
wretched  man  a  third  time  before  the  grand  jury,  and  he  then 
gave  the  testimony  which  has  since  obliged  him  to  corroborate. 
White,  at  least  as  to  these*  two  payments  of  money. 

But,  sir,  although  Link  does  swear  that  at  one  time  he  re- 
ceived $1,000  from  Browne  and  at  another  time  he  received 
80595 — 9673 


14 

$900  from  Wilson,  he  also  swears  distinctly  and  repeatedly  that 
not  one  dollar  of  either  sum  was  promised  to  him  or  paid  to 
him  on  account  of  his  vote  for  LORIMER.  Here  are  his  answers 
as  they  appear  on  page  301  of  the  printed  testimony: 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  money  or  any  other  thing  of  value 
from  anybody — Browne,  Wilson,  or  anybody  else — on  condition,  or  on 
the  promise  or  agreement  or  understanding,  directly  or  indirectly,  that 
you  were  to  vote  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER  for  United  States  Senator? — • 
A.  I  certainly  did  not. 

Senator  GAMBLE.     Or  after  he  had  voted  for  LORIMER. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  money  from  Lee  O'Neil  Browne,  Bob 
Wilson,  or  R.  E.  Wilson,  whatever  his  name  is,  or  anybody  else,  or  from 
any  source  whatever,  or  did  you  receive  any  other  thing  of  value  at 
any  time  from  anybody  because  you  had  voted  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER 
for  United  States  Senator? — A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  any  consideration  moving  to  you,  or  to  anybody 
for  you,  or  for  your  benefit,  in  any  place,  from  any  source  whatever, 
with  the  understanding  that  you  were  to  vote  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER 
for  United  States  Senator,  or  if  you  had  voted  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER 
for  United  States  Senator,  any  consideration  of  any  kind? — A.  None 
whatever. 

BECKEMEYER. 

I  come  now  to  the  witness,  Beckemeyer,  who  swears  most 
positively  that  he  was  not  promised  anything  as  an  inducement 
to  vote  for  LORIMER.  On  page  234  of  the  printed  testimony  he 
was  asked  this  question : 

Did  Lee  O'Neil  Browne,  at  any  time  or  at  any  place  before  Senator 
LORIMER  was  elected  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1909,  ever  tell  you  that 
he  or  anybody  else  would  give  you  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value 
afterwards  if  you  did  vote  for  Senator  LORIMER? 

And  he  answered: 

No.  sir. 

Again  he  was  asked: 

Was  there  anything  in  the  way  of  money  or  compensation  or  any- 
thing of  value  that  was  held  out  to  you  o:-  promised  to  you  or  indicated 
to  you  in  any  way  by  Browne  or  anybody  else  or  from  any  other  source 
to  induce  you  in  any  degree  to  vote  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER  for  United 
States  Senator  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1909? 

And  the  answer  was: 
No  ;  there  was  not. 

But  while  Beckemeyer  swears  that  they  did  not  promise  him 
anything  to  vote  for  LORIMER,  he  also  swears  that  afterwards 
Browne  gave  him  a  thousand  dollars  and  told  him  it  was 
"Lorimer  money."  Beckemeyer,  like  Link,  was  standing  under 
the  shadow  of  the  penitentiary,  with  its  open  doors  ready  to 
close  around  him,  and  he  was  promised  immunity  if  he  would 
swear  that  he  received  a  thousand  dollars  from  Browne  and 
$900  from  Wilson,  thus  corroborating  the  creature  White,  as 
Link  had  been  compelled  to  do.  Testimony  delivered  under 
those  circumstances  I  do  not  consider  of  any  value.  I  am  per- 
suaded that  a  man  who  accepts  a  bribe  could  be  hired  to  say 
that  he  had  been  paid  when  such  was  not  the  truth.  A  rich  and 
powerful  combination,  bent  upon  the  destruction  of  any  public 
man,  would  find  such  men  their  willing  tools  and  they  would 
swear  anything  for  a  price.  If  a  seat  in  the  Senate  is  to  be 
vacated  upon  the  testimony  of  such  men  then>  no  man  is  safe, 
for  every  man  has  rich  and  unscrupulous  enemies  who  can  hire, 
and,  if  given  a  hope  of  success,  will  hire  such  wretches  to  swear 
away  his  rights  and  character. 

There  was  one  other  member  of  the  house  by  the  natfie  of 
Luke,  whose  vote  it  is  sought  to  impeach  by  testimony  other 
80595—9673 


15 

than  that  of  White,  Link  and  Beckemeyer.  He  was  dead,  but 
his  wife  was  called  as  a  witness,  and  so  careful  a  lawyer  as 
the  Senator  from  Idaho  [Mr.  BORAH]  has  misstated  the  testi- 
mony with  respect  to  him ;  for  in  his  speech  he  leaves  the  im- 
pression that  Mrs.  Luke  testified  that  when  her  husband  re- 
turned from  that  meeting  at  St.  Louis,  where  they  say  the 
corruption  fund  was  distributed,  he  had  $950  in  his  possession. 
Let  me  read  what  the  Senator  from  Idaho  [Mr.  BORAH]  said: 

One  other  witness,  Mr.  Luke,  was  also  present  on  these  occasions. 
Mr.  Luke  is  dead.  His  wife  testified  that  he  received  a  telegram  on  one 
occasion ;  that  he  went  away,  and  that  when  he  came  back  he  had 
$950  in  his  possession.  I  think  that  Mr.  Murray  ought  to  have  been 
permitted  to  testify  as  to  what  Mr.  Luke  said  to  him ;  but  he  was  not, 
and  we  are  therefore  confined  to  the  proposition  that  Mr.  Luke  was 
present  at  least  upon  one  occasion ;  that  he  returned  with  about  the 
amount  of  money  which  was  being  paid,  and  that  he  cast  his  vote  for 
the  first  time  in  harmony  with  those  who  are  admitted  to  have  received 
the  several  sums  of  money  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Mr.  BORAH.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from 
Texas  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Idaho? 

Mr.  BAILEY.     Yes. 

Mr.  BORAH.  In  what  respect  did  the  Senator  from  Idaho 
misstate  Mrs.  Luke's  statement? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  In  this  respect,  and  I  think  when  I  have 
pointed  it  out  the  Senator  from  Idaho  will  ask  kave  to  correct 
the  RECORD.  If  the  Senator  from  Idaho  will  turn  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Mrs.  Luke  he  will  find  that,  pointedly  and  unequivo- 
cally, she  swears  that  when  Luke  returned  from  St.  Louis 
he  did  not  show  her  any  money.  She  swears  that  he  exhibited 
to  her  the  $950  before  he  went  to  that  meeting  at  St.  Louis. 

Mr.  BORAH.  The  Senator  inserts  something  into  my  re- 
marks that  I  did  not  say  and  was  very  careful  not  to  say.  I 
did  not  say  that  Mrs.  Luke  said  that  after  his  return  from 
St.  Louis  he  had  $950,  and  the  RECORD  does  not  bear  that 
statement.  I  said  that  upon  one  occasion  at  least  he  was 
present,  and  Mrs.  Luke  said  that  he  received  a  telegram  and 
returned  home  at  one  time  with  $950.  And  the  RECORD  is  in 
precisely  that  language. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  question  between  us 
to  the  cold  print.  I  regret,  however,  that  the  Senator  says  he 
was  careful  in  framing  that  statement,  because  th^at  looks  like 
he  desired,  without  actually  saying  so  himself,  to  mislead  the 
superficial  reader  into  thinking  that  Mrs.  Luke  swore  that  her 
husband  had  this  money  in  his  possession  after  he  returned 
from  the  St.  Louis  meeting.  Mr.  President,  the  Senator  from 
Idaho  says  that  I  have  inserted  "something  into  his  remarks 
and  that  he  did  not  say  it;"  but  the  Senator  is  as  badly  mis- 
taken about  that  as  he  is  about  Mrs.  Luke's  testimony.  In  the 
third  sentence  of  the  paragraph  which  I  have  quoted,  the  Sena- 
tor from  Idaho  says : 

His  wife  testified  that  he  received  a  telegram  on  one  occasion ;  that 
he  went  away  and  that  when  he  came  back  he  had  $950  in  his  pos- 
session. 

Now,  sir,  according  to  all  the  rules  of  construction,  and  in- 
deed, according  to  his  very  words,  the  Senator  from  Idaho  has 
said  that  when  Luke  came  back  from  the  St.  Louis  meeting  to 
which  he  had  been  called  by  a  telegram,  he  had  $950  in  his  pos- 
session. The  testimony  of  Mrs.  Luke,  however,  is  that  she  saw 
80595—9673 


16 

$950  in  her  husband's  possession  before  he  went  to  St.  Louis  in 
response  to  that  telegram,  and  that  she  saw  nothing  in  his  pos- 
session when  he  returned  from  the  St.  Louis  meeting. 

When  the  Senator  from  Idaho  says  that  Luke  was  present 
on  at  least  one  occasion  and  that  he  returned  with  $950  in  his 
possession,  he  must  mean,  of  course,  that  he  returned  from  a 
St.  Louis  meeting  with  $950,  because  it  was  the  meetings  at  St. 
Louis  which  the  Senator  was  then  discussing. 

Mr.  BORAH.    Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from  Texas 
yield  to  the  Senator  from  Idaho? 

Mr.  BAILEY.    Yes. 

Mr.  BORAH.  The  Senator  from  Texas  forgets  that  there 
were  two  meetings  in  St.  Louis. 

Mr.  BAILEY.    No;  I  do  not  forget  that. 

Mr.  BORAH.  There  was  a  meeting  at  St.  Louis,  and  there 
two  payments  made.  At  one  time  Browne  conducted  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  fund  and  at  another  time  Wilson  conducted 
the  distribution  of  the  fund. 

The  Senator  from  Idaho  said  that  upon  one  occasion  Mr.  Luke 
was  there,  and  the  witnesses  who  testified  to  that  are  all  the 
witnesses  who  were  present  at  St.  Louis;  and  I  say  that  upon 
one  occasion  he  was  there  and  upon  one  occasion  when  he 
returned  she  said  he  had  $950. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  But,  Mrs.  Luke  distinctly  said  that  it  was 
before  her  husband  had  been  to  St.  Louis  that  she  saw  him  with 
$950  and  that  she  did  not  see  him  with  any  money  after  he 
returned  from  St.  Louis.  As  Luke  had  received  more  than 
$2,000  for  his  services  as  a  member  of  the  Illinois  Legislature 
the  fact  that  he  had  $950  shortly  after  its  adjournment  is  not 
a  circumstance  which  can  fairly  raise  against  him  any  presump- 
tion of  dishonesty. 

Mr.  GAMBLE.  I  suggest  to  the  Senator  from  Texas — I  do 
it  with  some  timidity — that  he  read  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Luke. 
There  can  be  no  question  about  it. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  will  ask  the  Senator,  who  has  it  in  his 
hand,  to  read  it  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  GAMBLE.    I  quoted  it. 

Mr.  BAILEY.    I  know  you  did. 

Mr.  GAMBLE.    It  is  from  page  495  of  the  record  and  reads : 

Did  he  return  to  Nashville,  111.,  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legis- 
lature, if  you  know? 

Nashville  was  the  home  of  Luke  at  that  time. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  legislature  adjourned  about  the  4th  or  5th  of  June,  1909 ; 
can  you  tell  this  committee  about  when  he  did  return ;  how  long  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  legislature? — A.  Well,  I  suppose  right  away. 

Q.  You  believed  it  was  some  time  in  the  month  of  June,  1909? — 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Thereafter  do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  received  a  telegram 
from  Robert  E.  Wilson? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did 'you  see  it? — A.    No;  he  read  it  to  me. 

Mr.  AUSTRIAN.  After  the  receipt  of  this  telegram,  did  your  husband 
leave  your  home  in  Nashville? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  went? — A.    He  went  to  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Upon  his  return  from  St.  Louis,  did  he  show  you  anything? — 
A..  No. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  he  brought  with  him? — A.    No. 

Q.  Did  he  have  any  large  amount  of  money? — A.    No. 

Q.  Did  he  exhibit  to  you  any  amount  of  money? — A.   No. 

Q.  Did  you  see  $950  in  his  possession? — A.    I  did. 

Q.  When? — A.    Before  that  time. 
80595—9673 


17 

Q.  Before  he  went  to  St.  Louis? — A.    Yes. 

Q.  Where  had  he  been  immediately  before? — A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.  Had  he  been  away  from  home? — A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  he  been  to  Chicago  ? — A.   No. 

Q.  Had  he  been  to  St.   Louis? — A.    Ne. 

Q.  Where  had  he  been? — A.    I  don't  know. 

That  is  substantially  all  in  connection  with  that.  It  seems 
to  me  absolutely  and  directly  in  line  with  the  suggestion  made 
by  the  Senator  from  Texas. 

Mr.  BORAH.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from 
Texas  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Idaho? 

Mr.  BAILEY.     Certainly. 

Mr.  BORAH.  For  just  a  moment.  I  do  not  desire  to  enter 
into  a  controversy  about  the  matter  now,  but  I  desire  to  put 
in  the  RECORD,  precisely  in  line  with  what  has  just  been  read 
and  in  the  light  of  the  further  fact,  that  four  other  witnesses 
testified  that  Luke  was  present  at  St.  Louis 

Mr.  BAILEY.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  His  wife 
so  testifies. 

Mr.  BORAH.  His  wife  says  she  did  not  know  where  he  was, 
but  he  did  receive  a  telegram,  and  that  he  had  $950. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  But  she  testifies  that  he  had  the  $950  before, 
and  not  after,  the  St.  Louis  meeting. 

Mr.  BORAH.  But  she  says  she  does  not  know  where  he 
went  when  he  went  away. 

Mr.  BAILEY.    That  is  true. 

Mr.  BORAH.     It  is  very  true. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  But  that  is  not  unusual.  There  is  many  a 
wife  who  does  not  know  where  her  husband  has  gone. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  President,  as  this  record  is  to  be  permanent,  I  want  to 
say  here  that  I  would  believe  that  I  had  myself  intentionally 
misquoted  the  RECORD  as  readily  as  I  would  believe  that  the 
Senator  from  Idaho  wouJd  do  it.  I  know  he  would  not. 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  appreciate,  of  course,  the  statement  of  the 
Senator  from  Texas,  and  if  I  thought  in  the  light  of  the  evi- 
dence which  is  now  before  the  Senate,  I  had  misquoted  it,  I 
would  at  this  time  restate  it  for  the  purpose  of  having  the 
RECORD  in  future  bear  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  evidence. 

Mr.  BAILEY.     I  am  sure  of  that. 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  repeat  that  when  you  take  Mrs.  Luke's 
testimony,  the  testimony  of  the  four  witnesses,  the  fact  that 
she  said  her  husband  received  a  telegram  and  denied  havin? 
$950,  the  conclusion  which  I  drew  was  a  perfectly  legitimate  one. 
Now,  I  arn  perfectly  willing  to  leave  the  matter  where  the  Sen- 
ator from  Texas  places  it ;  that  is,  that  the  wife  does  not  very 
often  know  what  is  happening  when  the  husband  is  out  of  sight. 

HOLSTLAW. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  another  witness 
upon  whose  testimony  the  prosecution  relies  with  greater  confi- 
dence than  on  that  of  White  or  Link  or  Beckemeyer.  They  have 
introduced  Senator  Ho?stlaw,  who  swears  that  Senator  Broder- 
ick  paid  him  $2,500  to  vote  for  Senator  LORIMER,  and  they  insist 
that  Holstlaw's  testimony  is  entitled  to  special  weight  because 
it  is  corroborated  by  a  bank  deposit  made  at  the  time  he  re- 
ceived that  money  from  Broderick.  Holstlaw's  testimony  when 
80595 — 9073 2 


18 

analyzed  would  need  corroboration,  because  his  story  on  the 
face  of  it  is  a  most  improbable  one.  Let  me  quote  it  to  the 
Senate  in  his  own  remarks.  Here  it  is: 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  on  May  26,  1909,  whom  did  you  vote  for  for  United 
States  Senator? — A.  I  voted  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  You  were  there  in  the  joint  session  that  day,  then? — A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Before  voting  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER  on  the  26th  of  May,  1005), 
was  there  anything  said  to  you  by  anyone  about  paying  you  for  voting 
for  Mr.  LOHIMEE? — A.  On  the  night  before  the  26th,  which  was  thi- 
25th,  Mr.  Broderick  and  I  were  talking  and  Mr.  Broderick  said  to  mo, 
he  said,  "We  are  going  to  elect  Mr.  LOKIMBK  to-morrow,  aren't  we?'* 
1  told  him,  "Yes,  I  thought  we  were,"  and  that  I  intended  to  vote  for 
him. 

Q.  Proceed. — A.    And  he  said — he  says  "There  is  $2,500  for  you." 

Senator  BURROWS.    Said  what? 

A.  Said  "There  is  $2,500  for  you." 

Mr.  AUSTRIAN.  Where  was  that  conversation? — A.  It  was  at  the  St. 
Nick  Hotel,  on  the  outside  of  the  building. 

Q.  What  night,  the  night  before  the  vote  for  LORIMER  was  taken 
on  the  26th? — A.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  night  before. 

Q.  What  Broderick  do  you  refer  to? — A.    I  refer  to  Senator  Broderick. 

These  are  the  strangest  thieves  that  ever  congregated  in  a 
civilized  country,  if  this  statement  of  Holstlaw  is  to  be  believed. 
I  am  more  credulous,  perhaps,  than  I  ought  to  be,  and  1  can  be 
easily  imposed  upon  by  any  reasonable  story;  but,  sir,  I  balk 
when  I  am  asked  to  believe  that  a  bribe  giver  will  offer  $2,500 
to  a  legislator  who  has  already  declared  his  intention  of  voting 
the  bribe  giver's  way.  I  have  no  acquaintance  with  such  people 
that  would  qualify  me  te  understand  or  to  explain  their  conduct, 
but  speaking  from  my  limited  knowledge  of  human  nature  1 
think  it  very  much  more  probable  that  a  bribe  giver  would  keep 
the  money  intrusted  to  him  by  his  principal  even  after  he  had 
promised  it  to  one  of  his  fellow  corruptionists,  than  it  is  that 
he  would  volunteer  to  pay  it  when  there  was  no  necessity  for 
doing  so.  If  $2,500  were  left  a  bribe  giver  to  be  paid  over  to  a 
bribe  taker,  the  bribe  giver  would  be  more  apt  to  keep  it  than 
he  would  be  to  pay  it  over ;  and  it  has  never  happened  in  the 
history  of  the  world  that  a  corrupt  and  dishonest  man  has 
volunteered  to  part  with  money  left  with  him  under  such  cir- 
cumstances. 

But  they  say  that  Holstlaw  is  corroborated  by  a  bank  trans- 
action which  has  been  stressed  before  the  committee  and  before 
the  Senate  with  great  effect.  They  ask  us  to  believe  that  Hoist- 
lav/  received  this  money  from  Broderick,  because  they  say  that 
he  deposited  it  that  very  day  in  a  Chicago  bank  and  that  the 
amount  of  his  deposit  corresponds  exactly  with  the  amount 
which  he  says  that  Broderick  paid  him.  But,  sir,  when  Hoist- 
law  was  asked  the  name  of  the  bank  in  which  he  deposited  that 
money  he  gave  the  wrong  name,  and  had  to  be  prompted  by  the 
attorney  for  the  Tribune.  Let  me  read  those  questions  and 
answers,  for  they  are  brief : 

Q.  What  did  yon  do  with  the  money? — A.  I  took  it  and  put  it  in  the 
bank. 

Q.  What  bank?— A.    In  the  First  National  Bank. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  the  First  National  Bank  or  the  State  Bank  of  Chi- 
cago, which  ? — A.  I  believe  it  is  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago — pardon  me, 
I  believe  ft  was. 

Q.  The  State  Bank  of  Chicago? — A.    Yes,  sir. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  believe  that  a 
man   who  had   received  $2,500  and  deposited   it  under   circum- 
stances which  must  have  burned  it  into  his  brain  as  if  with  fire, 
could  have  forgotten  the  name  of  the  bank  in  which  he  denos- 
80595—9673 


19 

ited  it.  Not  only,  sir,  did  he  forget  the  name  of  the  bank  in 
which  it  was  deposited,  but  a  still  more  remarkable  and  inexpli- 
cable circumstance  is  that  the  bank  whose  name  had  escaped  him 
was  the  correspondent  of  a  bank  which  he  owned  and  controlled 
at  luka,  111.;  and,  as  if  to  make  his  testimony  still  more  im- 
probable and  still  more  inexplicable,  he  testified  at  a  subse- 
quent stage  of  the  investigation  that  he  had  never,  before  or 
since,  personally  made  any  deposit  in  that  bank.  Having  per- 
sonally made  but  one  deposit  there,  and  that  of  money  received 
as  the  price  of  his  honor,  I  can  not  believe  that  he  would  have 
forgotten  the  name  of  the  bank. 

The  attorney  for  the  Chicago  Tribune  has  treated  this  bank 
deposit  slip  as  confirming  Holstlaw's  testimony  beyond  all  doubt. 
He  not  only  offered  it  in  evidence,  but  not  content  with  that  he 
had  it  photographed,  and  a  photographic  copy  of  it  is  printed 
in  his  original  brief. 

A  Mr.  Newton,  the  chief  clerk  of  that  bank,  appeared  before 
the  committee,  and  testified  that  Mr.  Holstlaw  had  personally 
deposited  this  money,  and  that  he,  Mr.  Newton,  as  the  chief 
clerk  of  the  bank,  had  personally  received  it  from  Mr.  Holst- 
law. That  is  not  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  face  of  the 
deposit  slip,  because  it  does  not  bear  the  stamp  of  the  chief 
clerk.  It  does  not  bear  the  stamp  of  the  receiying  teller,  but 
it  bears  the  stamp  of  the  note  teller.  Still,  that  might  happen. 
It  is  not  exactly  regular,  but  it  might  be  entirely  honest. 

But,  Mr.  President,  as  my  suspicion  had  been  excited  by 
Holstlaw's  improbable  account  of  his  first  interview  with  Brod- 
erick,  and  still  more  by  his  mistake  as  to  the  bank  in  which  he 
deposited  that  money,  I  very  naturally  thought  it  proper  to 
scrutinize  this  deposit  slip  as. closely  as  possible,  and  on  it,  when 
read  in  connection  with  the  attorney's  brief,  I  found  what  I 
believe  to  be  indisputable  evidence  that  it  is  a  forgery.  In  this 
reply  brief  filed  by  the  attorney  he  again  specifies  this  as  a 
most  convincing  proof  that  Holstlaw  swore  the  truth  when  he 
said  that  Broderick  paid  him  $2,500  as  bribe  money,  because 
it  shows  that  Holstlaw  on  that  very  day  deposited  with  a  bank 
in  Chicago  that  exact  amount  to  the  credit  of  his  bank  at  luka. 
As  if  to  emphasize  it  still  more  and  more,  he  cites  us  to  the 
page  of  his  original  brief  on  which  the  photographic  copy  can 
be  found,  and  then  he  declares  that — 

The  testimony  is  most  Important  because  Holstlaw  had  testified  that 
immediately  upon  receiving  the  $2,500  in  currency  from  John  Broderick 
he  deposited  this  $2,500  at  the  Stafe  Bank  in  currency,  in  larga  bills, 
and  the  photographic  copy  of  his  own  deposit  slip,  in  his  own  hand- 
writing, is  to  be  found  on  page  98  of  our  opening  brief. 

I  will  ask  the  Sergeant  at  Arms  to  bring  me  the  papers  in 
this  case,  particularly  the  paper  giving  a  list  of  the  witnesses 
to  be  summoned  and  the  paper  containing  Holstlaw's  acknowl- 
edgment of  service.  When  I  submit  that  last-mentioned  paper 
to  the  Senate,  there  will  not  be  a  Senator  here  who  will  say 
that  the  same  man  who  signed  Holstlaw's  name  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  service  wrote  the  words  Holstlaw  Bank  at  the  top 
of  that  deposit  slip. 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  a  stronger  testimony  of  its  forgery 
than  merely  the  dissimilarity  of  penmanship.  Here,  sir,  is  an 
incontrovertible _  evidence:  The  name  of  Holstlaw  on  this  de- 
posit slip  is  misspelled,  and  who  will  believe  that  a  man  de- 
80595—9673 


20 

positing  $2,500  of  bribe  money  weuld  misspell  his  own  name? 
Still  another  and  a  pregnant  circumstance  which  I  will  lay 
before  the  Senate  when  the  Sergeant  at  Arms  brings  me  the 
papers  is  that  Holstlaw's  name  is  spelled  in  this  deposit  slip 
exactly  as  it  is  spelled  in  the  list  of  witnesses  furnished  to 
the  committee  by  the  attorney  of  the  Chicago  Tribune.  And 
that  may  explain,  let  me  say  to  my  friend  from  New  York  [Mr. 
ROOT],  why  the  prosecution  did  not  bring  the  officers  of  the 
banks  with  books  to  prove  this  deposit. 

Mr.  President,  the  Sergeant  at  Arms  has  now  handed  to  me 
the  document  bearing  Holstlaw's  acceptance  of  the  service,  but 
has  neglected  to  bring  me  the  list  of  witnesses.  It  is  enough, 
however,  for  me  to  say  that  Holstlaw's  name  as  spelled  on  this 
deposit  slip,  which  transposes  the  "V  and  "s"  is  spelled  or 
misspelled  exactly  the  same  way  in  the  list  of  witnesses 
furnished  by  the  prosecution  to  the  committee.  I  will  now  ask 
the  Senator  who  sits  near  me  here  [Mr.  TILLMAN]  to  look  at 
these  two  signatures ;  and  he  will  see  that  there  is  not  a  letter 
in  one  like  the  same  letter  in  the  other. 

Mr.  FRAZIER 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  JOHNSTON  in  the  chair). 
Does  the  Senator  from  Texas  yield? 

Mr.  BAILEY.    I  do. 

Mr.  FRAZIER.  Does  the  Senator  mean  to  state  to  the  Senate 
that  Senator  Holstlaw  stated  in  his  testimony  that  he  signed 
that  deposit  slip? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  do  not.  He  said  that  he  personally  de- 
posited the  money. 

Mr.  FRAZIER.  Exactly.  He  said  he  had  deposited  the 
money,  but  he  did  not  say  that  he  signed  the  deposit  slip. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  The  Senator  from  Tennessee  must  know  that 
I  have  not  made  any  such  statement. 

Mr.  FRAZIER.  The  impression  the  Senator  was  making  was 
that  this  must  be  a  forgery  because  the  signature  to  the  deposit 
slip  was  different  from  the  signature  made  by  Senator  Holstlaw 
to  the  subpoena.  Therefore  proof  that  the  deposit  slip  was  a 
forgery  could  only  be  based  upon  the  suggestion  that  Mr. 
Holstlaw  had  signed  the  deposit  slip,  and  Senator  Holstlaw 
does  not  say  that  he  signed  the  deposit  slip. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  The  Senator  did  not  do  me  tire  honor  to  listen 
carefully  to  what  I  was  saying,  because  I  took  up  the  brief — 
the  photographic  copy  of  deposit  slip  does  not  appear  in  the 
record — and  I  took  up. the  attorney's  brief,  stating  that  it  was 
photographed  there,  and  then  stating  that  in  his  second  or  reply 
brief  he  had  laid  special  emphasis  on  the  deposit  slip  being  in 
Holstlaw's  "own  handwriting." 

Mr.  FRAZIER.  Then  the  Senator's  argument  is  based  upon 
the  brief  of  the  attorney,  not  on  the  record. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  The  record  itself  was  that  Mr.  Holstlaw 
personally  deposited  it.  I  stated  that.  I  stated,  furthermore, 
that  the  bank  clerk  swore  he  received  it  from  Mr.  Holstlaw. 

Mr.  LODGE.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Texas 
yield  to  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  The  Senator  from  New  York  has  been  on  his 
feet  desiring  to  interrupt  me,  and  I  yield  first  to  him. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President.  I  rose  for  the  purpose  of  asking 
the  Senator  from  Texas  whether,  when  he' read  from  the  brief 
80595—9673 


21 

of  the  counsel  for  the  Chicago  Tribune,  that  this  deposit  slip 
was  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Holstlaw  he  understood  that 
there  was  any  evidence  anywhere  in  this  record  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Nothing  except  what  I  have  stated,  and  that 
is  that  Holstlaw  swore  that  he  personally  made  the  deposit  and 
the  bank  clerk  swore  that  he  personally  received  it  from  Holst- 
law. I  did  not  even  venture  to  say  what  I  know  to  be  a  matter 
of  practice,  that  in  nearly  all  cases  where  business  men  carry  a 
deposit  to  a  bank  they  do  make  out  their  own  deposit  slip. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Does  not  the  Senator  know  that  as  a  matter  of 
practice  when  business  men  coming  from  their  offices  go  into  a 
bank  to  make  a  deposit  the  bank  clerk  will  make  out  the  deposit 
slip? 

Mr.  BAILEY.    They  sometimes  do  and  sometimes  they  do  not. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I  will  ask  the  Senator  this  question.  Will  the 
Senator  permit  me? 

Mr.  BAILEY.     Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Is  tfiere  one  word  of  testimony  in  this  record  to 
the  effect  that  the  bank  clerk  did  not  make  out  the  deposit  slip 
tor  the  $2,500  brought  to  the  bank  by  Mr.  Holstlaw? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  The  only  testimony  is  that  Holstlaw  person- 
ally deposited  it  and  that  the  bank  clerk  personally  received  it 
from  Holstlaw.  I  was  careful  to  keep  within  the  record.  I 
made  no  suggestion  based  on  the  record  that  Holstlaw  did  draw 
the  deposit  slip,  but  I  spoke  from  the  brief  of  the  attorney  in  the 
case,  who  is  fairly  presumed  not  to  have  made  a  mistake  in  that 
respect;  and  whatever  the  argument  was  it  was  based  on  the 
statement  of  the  attorney,  without  the  slightest  pretense  that  it 
was  based  en  any  statement  in  the  testimony. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  only  basis  then,  as  I  understand  it,  for  the 
charge  that  there  was  a  forgery  of  this  deposit  slip  rests  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  attorney  of  the  Chicago  Tribune  was 
right  in  his  brief  and  not  upon  any  testimony  in  the  case  what- 
ever. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.    Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Texas 
yield  to  the  Senator  from  Iowa? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  should  like  to  make  a  reply  to  the  Senator 
from  New  York  before  I  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Iowa. 

Mr.  President,  I  repeat  for  the  third  time,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  I  need  to  repeat  it  in  order  to  clarify  it  to  some 
gentlemen,  that  I  was  careful  not  to  intimate  that  there  was  any 
proof  in  this  testimony  as  to  who  made  out  that  slip,  because  I 
had  examined  it  and  all  that  was  there  I  stated.  But  when  I 
came  to  argue  that  it  was  a  forgery  I  took  up  the  brief  of  the 
counsel,  and  it  is  a  perfectly  proper  thing  for  me  to  do  in  the 
Senate,  as  it  would  be  a  perfectly  proper  thing  for  me  to  do  in 
the  court  room,  because  it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  an  attorney 
employed  specially  to  present  the  case  would  not  assert,  or  even 
assume  an  important  fact  unless  he  had  a  good  reason  for  doing 
it.  And,  sir,  unless  we  accept  the  brief  of  the  attorney  there  is 
no  photographic  copy  of  this  deposit  slip  in  this  record. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President,  it  is  quite  immaterial  whether  a 
photographic  copy  was  in  the  record  or  not.  There  is  the 
evidence  of  the  officer  of  the  bank  that  he  received  that  deposit 
from  the  hands  of  Mr.  Holstlaw  on  the  16th  day  of  June  with 
that  deposit  slip 
80595 — 9673 


22 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Mr.  President,  I  have  always  found  that 
when  a  point  can  be  turned  against  an  attorney  it  at  once 
becomes  wholly  immaterial.  I  now  yield  to  the  Senator  from 
Iowa. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  Mr.  President,  I  am  not  at  all  sure  that  the 
paper  I  hold  in  my  hand  is  one  that  ought  to  be  introduced  into 
this  controversy  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  BAILEY.    Is  it  a  part  of  the  record? 

Mr.  CUMMINS.    It  is  not. 

Mr.  BAILEY.    Then,  Mr.  President 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  I  ask  the  Senator  from  Texas,  because  I 
know  he  is  always  desirous  of  doing  exact  justice 

Mr.  BAILEY.     I  hope  I  am. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  Whether  it  is  proper  to  suggest  it  in  view 
of  the  charge  of  forgery  just  made.  I  have  in  my  hand  the 
original  deposit  slip.  I  have  also  the  card  which  the  bank  at 
luka,  the  Holstlaw  bank,  presented  to  the  State  Bank  of  Chi- 
cago for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  State  Bank  the  signatures  of 
the  officers  of  the  luka  bank. 

I  do  this  simply  because  I  recognize  with  the  Senator  from 
Texas  that  the  statement  made  in  the  brief  of  the  Chicago  Tri- 
bune is  a  mistake.  It  is  not  true  that  the  deposit  slip  is  in  the 
handwriting  of  Senator  Holstlaw,  and  it  is  true  that  there  is  a 
mistake  in  the  spelling  of  the  name  in  the  deposit  slip.  The 
proof  accompanying  the  deposit  slip  explains  the  mistake  in 
regard  to  the  name. 

Now,  I  ask,  whether  it  is  proper  to  take  into  consideration 
the  original  deposit  slip  or  not.  If  it  be  important,  if  the  ques- 
tion of  forgery  becomes  material,  or  if  it  is  insisted  upon,  it  is 
evident  that  this  must  find  its  way  into  the  record  in  some  way 
or  other. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  All  I  have  to  say  is  that  if  they  had  forged 
one  document  they  would  not  hesitate  to  forge  an  explanation 
of  it.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  if  I  am,  I  have  been  misled  by 
the  lawyer  who  was  employed  to  present  this  case,  and  who  has 
presented  it  with  great  zeal  and  with  some  ability. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.     May  I  say  just  one  word  more  there? 

Mr.  BAILEY.    Certainly. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  A  moment's  inspection  of  the  paper  to  which 
I  have  referred  on  the  part  of  the  Senator  from  Texas  will  con- 
vince him  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  it  should  have  been 
forged. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Mr.  President,  as  they  are  introducing  mat- 
ters outside  of  the  record,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  a 
Senator  told  me  that  the  president  of  that  bank  told  him  that 
this  slip  was  really  a  copy  made  by  a  newspaper  correspondent. 
But  I  did  not  choose  to  repeat  that.  I  took  it  as  the  author- 
ized attorney  had  presented  it.  I  hardly  believed  that  an 
attorney,  permitted  by  the  courtesy  of  this  committee  to  appear 
before  it  and  present  this  case,  would  have  introduced  a  spuri- 
ous document.  He  introduced  it ;  and  attached  so  much  im- 
portance to  it  that  he  photographed  it;  and  then  in  order  to 
emphasize  and  give  it  probative  force,  he  stated  upon  his  re- 
sponsibility as  an  attorney  in  the  case  that  it  was  in  the  very 
handwriting  of  Holstlaw.  Now,  if  that  is  not  true,  I  am  not 
responsible  for  it.  I  have  made  an  argument  based  on  the 
record  and  the  briefs,  and  that,  sir,  is  perfectly  fair  and  proner. 
80595—9673 


23 

In  the  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court  you  will  find  many  cases 
where  they  have  commented  on  statements  made  in  the  briefs 
before  them,  and  surely,  sir,  it  is  not  unprecedented  or  remark- 
able that  I  should  do  so  here. 

Not  only  is  Holstlaw  discredited  by  his  improbable  story,  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  and  by  what  I  believe  to  be  the  forgery  by 
which  they  have  attempted  to  corroborate  him,  but  there  is  still 
another  circumstance  which  in  my  mind  destroys  the  value  of  his 
testimony.  He  had  been  indicted  in  Sangamon  county  for  per- 
jury, with  respect  to  another  and  totally  different  transaction, 
and  was  advised  by  the  sheriff  of  that  county  to  employ  a  cer- 
tain firm  of  lawyers.  Those  lawyers  contrived  to  have  the  in- 
dictment for  perjury  quashed  upon  an  agreement  with  the  State's 
Attorney  that  Holstlaw  would  sign  a  certain  paper  which  they 
had  prepared.  In  that  paper,  which  was  to  procure  his  immunity 
from  a  just  punishment  for  perjury,  he  first  made  this  statement 
of  this  transaction  with  Broderick,  although  he  had  not  been  ques- 
tioned by  the  grand  jury  about  the  senatorial  election,  and  it 
bore  absolutely  no  relation  to  the  offense  for  which  he  had  been 
indicted.  That  he  was  guilty  of  one  crime  I  do  not  think  ad- 
mits of  the  slightest  doubt,  but  ke  was  relieved  from  the  con- 
sequences of  that  crime  by  confessing  that  he  had  committed 
another.  Not  only,  Mr.  President,  did  they  agree  to  allow 
Holstlaw  to  go  unwhipped-of  justice  for  an  offense  of  which 
they  had  the  ample  and  documentary  proof,  but  they  also 
agreed  to  give  him  immunity  against  any  prosecution  for  the 
other  crime  which  they  thus  induced  him  to  confess. 

WHY  DEMOCRATS  VOTED  FOR  LORIMER. 

But,  Mr.  President,  turning  from  all  the  witnesses  and  docu- 
ments, the  Senator  from  New  York  demands  of  us  to  explain 
how  it  is  that  53  Democrats  in  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  could 
have  voted  for  Senator  LORIMER  unless  they  were  bribed  to  do 
so.  I  might  answer,  and  that  would  be  sufficient  for  those  who 
know  him,  that  they  were  thus  insuring  the  defeat  of  ex-Senator 
Hopkins ;  and  almost  any  Democrat  would  consider  that  a  satis- 
factory explanation.  I  intend  no  reflection  upon  the  character 
or  integrity  of  ex-Senator  Hopkins,  but  we  all  remember  his 
narrow  and  bitter  partisanship.  He  could  hardly  bring  himself 
to  admit  in  the  House  or  in  the  Senate  that  a  Democrat  could 
be^an  honest  man  and  a  patriot;  and  if  he  would  say  those  bitter 
things  here,  what  kind  of  speeches  do  you  suppose  he  was  in 
habit  of  making  against  the  Democrats  of  Illinois  on  the  stump? 
His  very  presence  in  a  Democratic  assembly  would  have  almost 
provoked  a  riot,  sir.  [Laughter.]  I  have  here  an  extract  from 
the  speech  which  he  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  what  was  known  as  the  force  bill,  and  in  which  he  de- 
nounced the  Democrats  of  that  day  and  of  that  body  with  such 
severity  that  one  of  the  ablest  men  in  it,  and  one  of  the  mildest 
men  who  ever  represented  a  district  there,  protested  against  it 
from  his  seat.  Mr.  President,  T  believe  I  will  read  to  the  Sen- 
ate a  small  part  of  what  Mr.  Hopkins  said  on  that  occasion. 

The, argument  which  have  been  Indulged  in  by  the  gentleman  from 
the  South  against  this  bill  are  the  arguments  which  are  indulged  in  bv 
the  hardened  criminal  who  seeks  to  avoid  the  just  punishment  of  the 
crime  which  he  has  committed. 

Mr.   COLBERTSON.     That  is  too  rough. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.    It  may  be  rough,  but  it  is  tru<>. 
80595—9673 


24 

He  deneunced  the  whole  Democratic  party,  because  Demo- 
crats North  and  South,  East  and  West,  were  opposed  to  that 
infamous  measure.  Yet  they  wonder  why  Democrats  should 
help  to  accomplish  his  defeat.  But  I  do  not  need  to  rest  a 
defense  of  the  Illinois  Democrats  who  voted  for  Senator  LORI- 
MER  on  the  extreme  partisanship  of  ex-Senator  Hopkins.  There 
is  another  and  an  altogether  sufficient  reason  for  the  course 
which  they  pursued.  They  were  in  a  hopeless  minority,  without 
the  shadow  of  a  chance  to  elect  a  Democrat,  and  whether  it  were 
wise  or  not,  it  certainly  does  not  justify  an  imputation  of  dis- 
honesty against  them  that  they  aided  in  defeating  a  Republican 
nominee.  I  do  not  say  that  I  would  have  done  what  they  did, 
because  I  am  one  of  those  old-fashioned  partisans  who  finds  it 
difficult  to  vote  for  any  candidate  except  one  nominated  by  my 
own  party.  I  believe  that  the  only  way  in  which  a  party  can 
be  preserved  is  by  yielding  an  ungrudging  obedience  to  the  will 
of  its  majority.  I  also  believe — and  I  deeply  regret  that  my 
belief  does  not  appear  to  be  shared  by  many  others  now — that 
parties  are  indispensible  to  the  successful  administration  of  a 
free  government,  for,  unless  I  have  misread  the  history  of  the 
world,  the  alternative  of  party  government  is  personal  govern- 
ment ;  and  I  am  sure  that  if  political  parties  ever  disappear 
from  the  arena  of  American  politics,  a  man  will  come  to  take 
their  place.  He  may  come  first  on  foot  and  he  may  walk  with 
becoming  humility  among  the  multitude,  but  as  his  power  and 
influence  grows  he  will  don  a  uniform  and  mount  a  horse, 
and  then  we  will  have  a  government  by  the  sword  instead  of  the 
one  which  our  fathers  ordained. 

If,  sir,  suspicion  attaches  to  any  members  of  the  Illinois 
Legislature  by  reason  of  the  bare  fact  that  they  voted  for  Mr. 
LORIMER,  the  Republicans  rather  than  the  Democrats  who 
voted  for  him  are  the  ones  who  can  be  more  justly  suspected 
The  Democrats  were  simply  doing  what  they  could  to  demor- 
alize the  Republican  party  by  defeating  its  nominee  for  an 
important  office,  and  that  is  nothing  extraordinary  nor  at  all 
unusual.  During  the  past  three  years  I  have  voted  many  times 
with  what  we  call  the  Republican  "insurgents,"  and  in  mere 
than  one  instance  I  have  been  actuated  in  doing  so  by  a  belief 
that  I  could  thus  further  divide  and  disrupt  the  Republican 
party.  I  have  made  no  concealment  of  my  purpose  in  that 
respect,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD 
will  show  that  I  made  more  than  one  declaration  of  that  kind. 
But,  sir,  the  case  was  wholly  different  with  the  Republicans  of 
the  Illinois  Legislature.  They  were  bolting  their  party's  nomi- 
nation, and  I  think  that  if  we  are  inclined  to  indulge  suspicion 
against  anybody  we  would  have  a  better  right  to  suspect  th" 
Republicans  who  bolted  their  party  than  the  Democrats  who 
aided  in  making  that  bolt  successful. 

The  Senator  from  New  York,  and  he  was  not  alone  in  pur- 
suing that  line  of  argument,  has  spoken  as  if  he  thought  the  ac- 
fion  of  those  Illinois  Democrats  is  without  precedent,  as  well 
as  without  excuse.  Sir,  they  have  forgotten  the  history  of  Illi- 
nois, because  more  than  once  a  result  like  this  has  been  wrought 
out  in  the  legislature  of  that  State.  All  over  this  land  to-day 
tb.ey  are  celebrating  the  anniversary  of  Lincoln's  birth,  and  mil- 
lions are  paying  homage  to  his  integrity  and  patriotism.  Even 
the  Southern  States,  against  which  he  levied  a  cruel  war,  have 
80595—9673 


25 

buried  their  animosity  in  the  years  which  have  elapsed  since 
than,  and  pay  respect  foil  deference  to  his  memory.  Yet,  sir, 
Abraham  Lincoln  signalized  his  entrance  into  national  politics 
by  an  episode  which  Senators  profess  themselves  incapable  of 
understanding.  In  1855  Lincoln  was  a  candidate  for  the  Senate, 
and  was  supported  by  the  Repubncan  members  of  the  Illinois 
Legislature,  if  it  te  proper  to  call  them  Republican,  as  the  Re- 
publican party  was  just  then  in  its  formative  state.  But  no 
matter  about  the  name  of  the  party  whose  candidate  he  was,  he 
was  supported  by  all  of  his  partisans  in  that  legislature. 

The  Democratic  candidate  against  him  was  James  Shields,  a 
remarkable  and  romantic  character,  but  his  election  was 
made  impossible  by  the  refusal  of  5  Democrats  to  vote  for 
him.  Those  5  Democrats,  under  the  leadership  of  John  M. 
Palmer,  who  afterwards  became  a  Senator  from  Illinois,  voted 
for  Lyman  Trumbull,  and  after  an  ineffectual  effort  to  elect 
their  candidate  the  Democrats  withdrew  Senator  Shields  and 
substituted  Gov.  Matteson  as  their  candidate,  and,  fearing 
the  election  of  Matteson,  Lincoln  advised  his  Republican  friends 
to  vote  for  Lyman  Trumbull,  a  bolting  Democrat,  who  received 
43  of  the  45  Lincoln  votes  in  that  legislature,  and  with  them 
was  elected  a  Senator.  Lincoln  afterwards  explained  in  a  letter 
to  the  Hon.  E.  B.  Washburne  that  he  could  have  held  15  of 
his  votes  to  the  end  of  the  legislative  session,  but  that  he  feared 
the  election  of  Matteson,  and,  under  his  own  advice,  his  friends 
abandoned  him  to  elect  a  candidate  who  avowed  allegiance  to 
another  party.  The  same  John  M.  Palmer  who  led  the  bolting 
Democrats  in  the  Illinois  Legislature  of  1855  was,  more  than 
30  years  afterwards,  himseJf  elected  to  this  body  by  the  votes  of 
men  who  did  not  belong  to  the  Democratic  party. 

Who  does  not  remember,  sir,  the  time  when  the  Illinois  Demo- 
crats elected  David  Davis  to  the  Senate,  taking  him  from  the 
supreme  bench.  In  1885,  I  believe  it  was,  that  sturdy  Demo- 
crat. William  Morrison,  was  our  nominee  and  the  Legislature 
of  Illinois  stood  102  to  102.  The  Democrats  were  unable 
to  poll  the  full  party  vote  for  Morrison,  and  when  it  ap- 
peared that  Logan's  election  was  imminent  they  cast  ninety-odd 
votes  for  Charles  B.  Farwell,  a  Republican,  in  order  to  defeat 
the  Republican  nominee.  Having  failed  to  stampede  the  Re- 
publicans, the  Democrats  withdrew  their  votes  from  Farwell 
and  cast  them  for  Judge  Lambert  Tree. 

There  was  one  incident  of  that  contest  in  which  a  non- 
partisan  patriot  can  find  the  greatest  satisfaction.  The  Demo- 
crats, as  I  have  said,  held  a  membership  in  the  joint  assembly 
of  102.  The  Republicans  likewise  had  102,  but  God  laid  his 
hand  on  a  Democratic  senator  and  left  the  Republicans  with  a 
majority  of  one.  There  was,  however,  a  loyal  and  brave  Repub- 
lican there  who  said  that  the  election  of  a  Senator  ought  to  be 
settled  by  a  full  legislature,  and  he  paired  with  the  dead  man 
until  his  successor  could  be  elected. 

I  relate  that  with  more  pride  and  satisfaction  than  I  relate 
the  subsequent  proceeding,  because  that  was  a  piece  of  sharp 
political  practice  for  whicl?  our  friends  on  the  other  side  have 
been  famous,  more  or  less.  The  district  which  had  been  rep- 
resented by  the  dead  State  Senator  was  overwhelmingly  Demo- 
cratic, and  the  Republicans  pretended  that  they  did  not  intend 
to  make  a  nomination,  and  they  did  not.  But  while  appearing 
80595— 9673 


26 

to  let  the  contest  go  by  default,  they  organized  a  most  remark- 
able campaign.  They  sent  men  into  every  county  of  the  district 
ostensibly  to  sell  sewing  machines  and  other  articles,  but  really 
to  inform  all  Republicans  of  the  plan.  They  printed  their  bal- 
lots, distributed  them,  and,  marvelous  to  say,  kept  their  secret. 
The  word  was  passed  around  that  no  Republican  was  to  make  a 
sign  of  life  until  3  o'clock  on  the  afternoon  of  the  election. 
Promptly  at  3  o'clock  they  came  pouring  out  of  their  homes  and 
places  of  business,  captured  the  polls,  elected  a  Republican,  and 
broke  the  deadlock  by  re-electing  Logan  to  the  Senate. 

This,  sir,  was  not  an  uncommon  contest  in  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, except  in  its  aftermath.  When  Abraham  Lincoln  helped  to 
elect  a  Democrat  there  was  no  suggestion  of  bribery  and  cor- 
ruption. When  the  Democrats  of  the  Illinois  Legislature 
elected  David  Davis  to  the  Senate  there  was  no  effort  to  soil  the 
name  of  that  great  State.  When  William  R.  Morrison,  as  brave 
and  true  a  man  as  ever  devoted  his  life  to  the  service  of  any 
country,  failed  to  command  his  full  party  strength  in  the  legis- 
lature, there  was  no  hint  of  bribery.  But  all  of  this  is  now 
sadly  changed,  and  a  Senator  here  whA  for  14  years  has  held 
an  unquestioned  commission  in  the  other  fiteuse,  and  whose  habits 
will  not  suffer  by  comparison  with  the  cleanest  Senator  on  either 
side  of  this  Chamber,  is  pilloried  before  the  world  as  a  corrup- 
tionist  and  a  criminal.  What  is  there  in  his  life  to  warrant  or 
justify  this  cruel  warfare  against  him?  He  never  touches 
liquor  of  any  kind;  he  does  not  swear;  he  does  not  gamble;  he 
does  not  indulge  even  in  the  small  vice  of  using  tobacco;  he 
is  a  model  husband  and  father,  and  while  many  of  those  who 
assail  him  were  reveling,  be  has  made  his  home  when  in  Wash- 
ington with  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association. 

Those  for  whom  he  has  worked,  those  with  whom  he  has 
worked,  and  those  who  have  worked  for  him  all  bear  witness  to 
his  justice  and  his  generosity.  His  business  associates  vouch 
for  his  absolute  probity.  And  yet,  sir,  they  ask  us  to  destroy 
this  man  of  Christian  character  and  blameless  life  upon  the 
testimony  of  self-confessed  bribe  takers  and  perjurers.  Before 
they  can  make  me  believe  that  this  man  has  committed  a 
crime  they  must  offer  me  something  better  than  the  testimony 
of  men  who  sell  their  votes  and  then  proclaim  their  infamy  to 
the  world  for  a  price.  Men  of  upright  life  and  Christian  con- 
duct do  not  commit  the  crime  of  bribery. 

Left  fatherless  when  he  was  10  years  old,  and  at  a  time 
when  children  of  his  age  should  be  at  play,  he  went  to  work, 
and,  with  the  aid  of  an  older  brother,  supported  his  widowed 
mother  and  his  sisters.  Without  complaint  and  without  falter- 
ing, he  did  his  duty  as  a  son  and  as  a  brother.  Struggling  with 
poverty  and  obscurity,  he  worked  his  way  from  a  bootblack's 
stand  to  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States ;  and,  so  help 
me  _God,  I  will  never  blast  a  career  like  that  except  upon  the 
testimony  of  honest  men.  [Manifestations  of  applause  in  the 
galleries.]  The  story  of  WILLIAM  LORIMER'S  struggles  and 
achievements  is  an  inspiration  and  a  hope  to  everv  boy  of 
humble  birth  beneath  this  flag,  and  I  will  not  sacrifice  him  to 
please  a  rich  and  powerful  newspaper  whose  enmity  he  has 
incurred  by  refusing  to  comply  with  its  owner's  demands. 

Mr.  President,  while  it  is,  of  course,  no  part  of  this  record, 
I  want  to  read  a  tribute  which  even  the  prosecution  in  this 
80595 — 9673 


27 

case  paid  to  WILLIAM  LORIMER  the  morning  after  his  election. 
This  is  from  the  Chicago  Tribune  of  May  27,  1909.  It  is  long, 
and  I  will  not  read  it  all,  but  I  will  read  enough  of  it  to  ihow 
what  manner  of  man  he  is. 

It  was  nothing  strange  for  LORIMER  to  be  elected  through  the  aid  of 
Democratic  votes,  for  he  has  enjoyed  a  large  Democratic  following  for 
many  years.  Three  times  he  was  elected  to  Congress  in  the  old  second 
district,  which  was  Democratic,  and  his  political  sway  has  been 
strongest  in  Democratic  territory.  To  such  a  marked  degree  has  Demo- 
cratic support  figured  in  his  political  achievement  that  bis  friends 
point  with  pride  to  the  nonpartisan  character  of  his  following,  while 
his  enemies  contemptuously -dub  him  "bipartisan  Billy." 

*  *  *  *  *  •  * 
Through  all  the  praise  and  abuse  LORIMER  has  maintained  the  same 

placid,  benign  attitude,  which  by  many  is  considered  the  secret  of  his 
success.  A  man  who  never  lost  his  temper,  who  neve'  has  been  heard  to 
swear,  who  does  not  smoke  or  drink,  who  always  speaks  softly  and 
kindly,  LORIMER,  with -that  patient,  childlike  countenance,  those  com- 
passionate, drooping  eyelids,  has  endured  all  and  bided  his  time.  Al- 
ways observing,  apparently,  the  doctrine  of  nonresistance,  he  has  waited 
opportunity,  rested  while  his  enemies  worked,  listened  while  his  rivals 
talked,  and  then  blandly  and  gently  led  the  way  to  the  solution  he 
himself  had  planned. 

*  *  *  *  •  •  • 

He  was  about  20  years  old  when  he  made  his  appearance  as  a  horse- 
car  conductor  on  the  old  Madison  Street  line  between  State  Street  and 
Western  Avenue.  In  this  employment  he  first  showed  his  talent  for 
handling  men.  He  organized  the  Street  Railway  Employees'  Benevolent 
Association,  and  became  at  once  the  big  man  of  that  little  world. 

Faithful  to  those  who  worked  with  him  in  an  humble  occupa- 
tion;  faithful  to  his  business  associates;  faithful  to  his  personal 
and  political  friends;  faithful  to  his  widowed  mother  and  his 
fatherless  sisters;  faithful  to  his  wife  and  children,  and  faith- 
ful to  his  God,  I  will  not,  sir,  upon  this  evidence  believe  that 
he  was  faithless  to  his  country. 

THE  LAW. 

I  come  now,  Mr.  President,  to  consider  the  legal  effect  of 
bribery  on  an  election,  and  the  whole  law  relating  to  that  sub- 
ject is  comprehended  in  those  two  short  and  simple  proposi- 
tions : 

First.  If  the  officer  whose  election  is  challenged  personally 
participated  in,  or  encouraged,  or  sanctioned  the  bribery,  then 
his  election  is  void,  without  reference  to  the  extent  of  the 
bribery. 

Second.  If  the  officer  whose  election  is  challenged  did  not 
personally  participate  in,  or  encourage,  or  sanction  the  bribery 
then,  in  order  to  invalidate  his  election,  it  must  be  shown  by 
sufficient  evidence  that  enough  votes  were  bribed  to  affect  the 
result. 

The  first  proposition  has  not  always  been  received  as  the  law 
without  question,  and  many  eminent  lawyers  have  insisted  that 
no  election  can  "be  invalidated  by  bribery,  no  matter  by  whom  it 
was  practiced,  unless  it  was  sufficient  to  have  produced  the 
result.  Indeed,  sir,  so  late  as  the  Payne  case,  a  committee  of 
the  Senate  pretermitted  an  explicit  declaration  on  that  point  be- 
cause some  of  its  Members  maintained  that  view.  But  a  fur- 
ther and  a  more  thorough  consideration  has  established  the  rule 
as  I  have  stated  it,  and  it  is  now  universally  accepted  both  in 
the  Senate  and  in  the  courts  of  the  country.  I  do  not  mean,  of 
course,  that  there  are  not  some  who  still  protest  against  it,  but 
they  belong  to  that  class  of  lawyers,  happily  very  small,  who 
think  they  can  enhance  their  reputation  for  legal  acumen  by 
rejecting  the  most  universally  received  opinions. 
80595—9673 


28 

It  was  not  necessary  for  me  even  to  state  my  first  proposition 
of  law,  and  certainly  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  argue  it; 
because  both  the  testimony  and  the  admissions  in  this  record 
render  it  wholly  irrelevant  to  this  discussion.  At  the  very 
threshold  of  the  investigation  those  who  are  seeking  to  hnpeach 
the  election  of  Mr.  LORIMER  distinctly  admitted  that  they  did 
not  expect  to  connect  him  personally  with  any  of  the  bribery 
which  they  hoped  to  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  committee, 
and  not  one  of  that  great  array  of  witnesses  testified  to  anything 
implicating  the  Senator  from  Illinois  personally  in  any  cor- 
rupt transaction.  As  a  member  of  the  subcommittee,  the 
Senator  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  FRAZIER]  heard  all  the  testimony, 
and  athough  he  dissents  from  the  conclusion  of  the  committee, 
he  fully  agreed  with  it  in  that  particular  respect.  With  a 
fairness  which  has  won  for  him  the  respect  of  all  who  are  for- 
tunate enough  to  enjoy  his  personal  acquaintance,  the  Senator 
from  Tennessee  disposes  of  this  phase  of  the  question  in  these 
words : 

While  there  are  some  facts  and  circumstances  in  this  case  tending 
to  show  that  Senator  LORIMER  may  have  heard  of  or  known  that  cor- 
rupt practices  were  being  resorted  to,  and  while  Senator  LORIMEK 
failed  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity  of  going  on  the  stand  as  a 
witness  and  denying  any  such  knowledge  or  sanction  of  corrupt  prac- 
tices, if  any  sirch  were  being  practiced,  still  I  am  of  the  opinion  tha't 
the  testimony  fails  to  establish  the  fact  that  Senator  LORIMER  was 
himselt  guilty  of  bribery  or  other  corrupt  practices,  or  that  he  sanc- 
tioned or  was  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  bribery  or  other  corrupt 
practices  were  being  used  by  others  to  influence  votes  for  him. 

This  being  true,  the  question  then  arises,  Was  bribery  or  corrupt 
practices  used  by  others  in  his  behal'f  to  influence  votes  for  him ;  and, 
if  so,  were  enough  votes  thus  tainted  with  fraud  and  corruptly  in- 
fluenced when  excluded  to  reduce  his  vote  below  the  legal  majority 
required  for  his  election? 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  which  has  pursued  Mr.  LORIMER  with 
unrelenting  bitterness  for  years  and  instigated  this  proceeding 
against  him,  after  searching  the  State  of  Illinois  with  its  corps 
of  trained  attorneys  and  detectives  for  months,  was  utterly 
unable  to  produce  any  testimony  connecting  him  personally 
with  the  corruption  which  they  charged,  and  through  its  attor- 
ney was  compelled  to  disclaim  any  purpose  of  attempting  to 
do  so.  It  is  true  that  in  the  heat  of  this  debate  some  Senators 
have  contended  that  all  these  things  could  not  have  transpired 
without  Senator  LORIMER'S  knowledge  and  consent,  but  when 
they  soberly  review  the  testimony  and  reflect  that  there  is  not 
one  word  In  it  to  justify  such  an  imputation,  they  will  hesitate 
to  declare  a  conclusion  which  even  the  zeal  of  a  special  counsel 
did  not  permit  him  to  urge  upon  the  committee ;  and  I  dismiss 
the  question  of  Senator  LORIMER'S  personal  participation  in  the 
alleged  bribery  as  not  at  issue  here. 

The  law,  and  the  only  law,  which  the  facts  make  applicable 
to  this  case,  is  that  which  I  have  stated  as  my  second  propo- 
sition, and  it  is  now  so  well  settled  both  in  reason  and  upon 
authority  that  it  is  not  seriously  controverted  in  any  legislative 
body  or  in  any  court.  Of  course  I  do  not  forget  that  in  the  docu- 
ment, which  he  describes  as  a  minority  report,  trie  Senator  from 
Indiana  dissents  from  its  soundness,  though  he  does  not  venture 
to  deny  that  it  is  now  the  law.  Indeed,  he  concedes  it  to  be  the 
law  and  calls  on  us  to  repeal  it.  Oblivious  to  the  fact  that  this 
rule  has  been  evolved  and  matured  by  the  profoundest  judges  who 
have  ever  adorned  the  bench,  and  that  it  has  been  repeatedly  ap- 
proved by  some  of  the  wisest  Senators  who  have  ever  honored 
80595—9673 


29 

this  body  by  their  service,  he  repudiates  it  without  hesitation, 
and  demands  that  we  adopt  the  new  and  different  rule  which 
he  proposes..  Here  are  his  words: 

So  I  propose  that  we  overthrow  such  unsound  precedents  and  estab- 
lish a  new.. Senate  precedent,  that  one  act  of  bribery  makes'  such  an 
election  void— makes  an  election  foul. 

In  this -rather  Void  and  altogether  novel  position,  the  Senator 
from  Indiana  is  supported  only  by  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma, 
who  is  so  uncertain  -about  the  capacity  of  the  Senate  t©  protect 
its  integrity  under  the  American  rule  that  he  urges  us  to  adopt 
what  he  mistakingly  supposes  to  be  the  English  rule.  But  while 
the  Senators  from  Oklahoma  and  Indiana  are  the  only  ones  who 
have  ventured  to  openly  criticize  the  American  rule,  they  are  not 
the  only  ones  who  have  introduced  the  English  rule  into  this  dis- 
cussion, though  none  of  them  have  correctly  stated  it.  The  Sen- 
ator from.  Ohio,  usually  so  accurate,  read  at  length  from  one  of 
the  English  decisions  and  then  made  it  plain  in  his  comments 
upon  it  that  he  does  not  understand  the  difference  between  a 
"candidate's  agent"  under  the  British  statute  and  an  "agent" 
as  we  use  the  term  in  this  country.  The  English  election  law 
expressly  provides  for  the  appointment  of  an  agent  who  bears  to 
their  campaigns  a  relation  analogous  to,  though  not  entirely  the 
same  as,  the  chairman  of  a  campaign  committee  in  this  country. 
The  "agent"  under  the  English  statute,  however,  is  provided  for, 
and  appointed  in  accordance  with  its  provisions  and  represents  the. 
candidate  throughout  the  contest.  That  is  what  the  English  statute 
and  decisions  mean  when  they  refer  to  an  "agent."  Even  the  Sen- 
ator from  New  York,  who  is  justlysupposedtoknowsomuch  about 
the  law  of  all  nations,  fell  into  the  same  error  as  the  Senator 
from  Ohio  and  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma,  and  though  his 
reference  to  the  English  rule  was  brief,  he  clearly  asserted  that 
the  purchase  of  a  single  vote,  under  any-  circumstances  or  by 
any  person,  renders  an  election  in  that  country  void.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, if  the  Senators  from  Ohio  and  New  York  had  followed  this 
debate  attentively  they  would  have  saved  themselves  from  that^ 
inexcusable  mistake,  because  in  the  very  excellent  speech  der- 
livered  by  the  honorable  chairman  of  this  committee  [Mr.  BUR- 
ROWS] he  took  the  trouble  to  specifically  point  out  the  mistake 
which  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma  had  made  as  to  the  law  of 
Great  Britain.  But,  sir,  even  if  the  law  in  that  country  were 
precisely  what  these  Senators  have  supposed  it  to  be,  it  has' 
been  made  so  by  a  statute,  and  that  fact  itself  shows  that  it  was- 
not  a  rule  of  the  common  law  to  which  we  must  turn  for  our 
guidance  and  our:  instruction. 

It  is  nof  probable,  sir,  that  the  people  of  this  country  could 
be  persuaded  under  any  circumstances  to  adopt  or  approve  a 
law  which,  would  vitiate  a  senatorial  election  on  account  of  the 
ineffective  misconduct  of  some  irresponsible  person,  and  cer-  • 
tainly  they,  would  not  be  so  foolish  as  to  do  so  with  an  amend- 
ment now,  pending  before  us  to  provide  for  the  election  of 
Senators  by  .djrect  vote  of  the  people.  If  that  amendment  shall 
finally  be  adopted — and  it  will  be  sooner  or  later — the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  under  the  rule  proposed  by  the  Senator 
from  Indiana,  would  be  perpetually  engaged  in  the  trial  of  con- 
tested-election cases,  for  in  every  State  of  this  Union  some 
wretch  can.  be  found  so  base  as  to  sell  his  vote  and»theri  con- 
fess his  crime,:  if  by  doing  so  he  could  invalidate  an  electidfr 
which  had  pone  against  the  interest  or  the  wishes  of  his  con- 
80595—9673 


30 

federates.  Indeed,  sir,  desperate  and  unscrupulous  politicians 
would  deliberately  plan  to  buy  a  few  votes  for  the  opposition 
so  that  if  the  election  did  not  result  in  their  favor  they  coul'.i 
prove  the  corruption  and  thus  defeat  their  opponents  in  that 
way,  when  they  could  not  do  so  at  the  polls.  The  successful 
candidate  might  receive  a  majority  of  the  honest  votes  running 
into  the  thousands,  or  the  tens  of  thousands,  and  yet  under  this 
rule  a  few  scoundrels  could  set  aside  the  clearest  and  most 
unequivocal  expression  of  the  popular  will.  A  rule  which  in- 
vites that,  or  a  rule  which  permits  that,  is  too  absurd  to  require 
a  serious  consideration  at  this  time  and  in  this  place. 

Mr.  President,  perhaps  I  can  save  time  and  relieve  the  Senate 
from  a  tedious  examination  of  the  authorities  by  coming  to  an 
agreement  with  the  Senators  who  have  participated  in  this 
debate  as  to  the  law  which  must  govern  us  in  deciding  this 
case.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  interrogate  the  Senator 
from  Tennessee  [Mr.  FRAZIER]  because  in  the  brief,  but  very 
clear,  statement  of  his  views  he  has  laid  down  the  law  ex- 
actly as  I  understand  it,  and  there  is  absolutely  no  difference 
between  him  and  me  in  that  respect.  Nor  can  I  believe  that 
there  is  any  difference  on  this  proposition  between  me  and  the 
Senators  from  New  York,  Idaho  and  Iowa ;  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  dispensing  with  an  argument  in  support  of  my  view,  1 
believe  that  I  will  venture  upon  the  unusual  course  of  asking 
those  Senators  in  the  open  Senate  whether  or  not  we  can  agree 
upon  the  law.  I  will  first  ask  the  Senator  from  New  York 
whether  he  assents  to  my  legal  proposition,  that — 

If  the  officer  whose  election  is  challenged  did  not  personally  partici- 
pate in,  or  encourage,  or  sanction  the  bribery,  then  his  election  can  not 
be  avoided  unless  it  is  shown  by  sufficient  evidence  that  enough  votes 
were  bribed  to  affect  the  result. 

Does  the  Senator  from  New  York  assent  to  that  proposition? 
Mr.  ROOT.    I  do  not. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Then  I  will  produce  abundant  authorities  to 
show  that  it  is  the  law.  I  will  next  ask  the  Senator  from  Idaho 
whether  he  agrees  that  I  have  stated  the  law  correctly. 

Mr.  BORAH.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Texas 
yield  to  the  Senator  from  Idaho? 

Mr.  BAILEY.    I  do. 

Mr.  BORAH.  If  I  correctly  understand  the  statement  of  the 
Senator — it  is  pretty  difficult  to  follow  a  statement  as  it  is  made 
and  analyze  it  at  the  same  time — I  do  agree  to  that  legal 
proposition  so  far  as  this  case  is  concerned.  But  permit  me,  in 
order  that  I  may  not  be  found  in  error  in  the  RECORD  to-morrow 
again,  to  ask  the  Senator  a  question,  and  that  is  whether  or  not 
the  statement  that  I  now  make  is  the  same  statement  that  he 
makes :  If  the  officer  whose  election  is  challenged  did  not  per- 
sonally participate  in  or  encourage  or  sanction  the  bribery,  then 
his  election  can  not  be  avoided  unless  it  is  shown  by  sufficient 
evidence  that  enough  votes  were  bribed,  without  which  bribed 
votes  he  would  not  have  had  the  majority  required  by  the 
statute. 

Mr.  BAILEY.     It  is  in  effect  the  same;  and  if  there  is  any 

difference,  the  Senator  has  stated  the  law  a  little  stronger  on 

my  side  than  I  have  stated  it.    The  only  difference, -bet ween  the 

Senator  and  myself  will  he  as  to  the  application  of  the;r«le.     I 

80,'ftr.— 0673 


31 

perfectly  understand  that  when  we  reach  that  point  we  will  be 
at  the  parting  of  our  ways,  but  on  the  law,  I  think  there  can  be 
no  difference. 

Mr.  BORAH.  If  the  statement  I  have  just  made  is  the  state- 
ment the  Senator  thinks  is  contained  in  his  statement,  it  is  the 
statement  which  I  believe  contains  the  law 

Mr.  BAILEY.  There  is  no  question  about  that,  and  I  will 
now  ask  the  Senator  from  Iowa  if  he  agrees  with  me  on  the  law 
as  I  have  stated  it. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  I  stated  with  all  the  clearness  that  I  could 
when  I  was  discussing  this  matter  some  days  ago  my  view  of 
the  law.  I  believe  it  to  be  true  that  if  the  evidence  fails  to 
show  on  the  part  of  the  Senator  any  personal  participation  in 
or  knowledge  of  corrupt  practices  with  which  the  election  may 
be  charged,  then  in  order  to  invalidate  the  election  it  must  be 
sho.vn  that  the  election  was  accomplished  by  and  through  brib- 
ery or  corruption. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  I  am  gratified  to  know  that  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  me  and  the  Senators  from  Iowa  and  Idaho  on  the 
law ;  and  I  am  confident  that  upon  a  further  reflection  the 
Senator  from  New  York  will  withdraw  his  dissent,  for  the  rule 
has  been  long  and  uniformly  followed  here. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I  do  not  want  the  Senator  from  Texas  to  con- 
sider that  I  dissent  from  all  and  every  part  of  his  statement.  As 
I  listened  to  it,  it  appeared  to  me  that  it  was  capable  of  a  con- 
struction which  would  make  it  broader  than  I  think  it  ought  to 
be.  I  will  gladly  examine  the  statement,  as  it  will  appear  in  the 
RECORD,  I  suppose,  and  see  whether  I  wish  to  suggest  a  quali- 
fication. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  It  will  not  appear  in  the  RECORD  to-morrow, 
but  I  have  reduced  to  writing  what  I  intend  to  say  on  the  law, 
because  I  thought  it  of  supreme  importance  to  have  that  cor- 
rectly stated ;  and  I  take  the  liberty  of  sending  it  to  the  Senator 
from  New  York.  I  can  not  think  that  after  he  examines  it  care- 
fully it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  consume  the  time  of  the 
Senate  in  discussing  it:  I  perfectly  understand  that  when  we 
come  to  apply  my  rule  differences  will  arise.  For  instance, 
when  we  come  to  determine  how  many  votes  are  sufficient  to 
affect  the  result,  the  Senator  from  Idaho,  the  Senator  from 
Iowa,  and  the  Senator  from  New  York  have  already  indicated 
to  the  Senate  a  different  opinion  from  that  which  I  entertain. 
But  that  is  a  difference  merely  as  to  the  application  of  the  law 
and  not  as  to  the  law  itself. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  is  precisely  at  that  point  that  I  hesitate  to 
give  my  assent  to  the  proposition  made  by  the  Senator  from 
Texas.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the  Senator  for  sending  me  tRis 
paper,  and  I  will  examine  his  statement  of  the  rule  with  care. 
^  Mr.  CARTER.  The  Senator  from  Texas  has  been  speaking 
since  2  o'clock — for  more  than  two  hours  and  a  half.  It  is 
now  well  into  the  evening.  I  observe  the  Senator  is  making 
unusual  efforts  to  condense  his  remarks,  and  is  making  them 
rapidly.  The  points  he  is  covering  are  points  I  am  sure  in 
which  the  Senate  is  interested,  and  I  therefore  venture  to  ask 
unanimous  consent  that  the  Senator  be  permitted  to  proceed 
with  his  remarks  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  morning 
business  to-morrow. 
80595—9673 


32 

Mr.  BAILEY.  If  that  is  agreeable  to  the  Senate  and  does 
not  interfere  with  some  announcement  already  made  by  other 
Senators,  I  will  act  on  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator  from 
Montana.  I  will  now  yield  the  floor  and  will  conclude  to- 
morrow. 

Tuesday,  February  14,  1911, 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Mr.  President,  when  I  yielded  the  floor  yes- 
terday afternoon  I  had  reached  the  law  question  involved  in 
this  case,  but  with  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate,  I  want  to  re- 
turn for  a  few  moments  to  one  of  the  episodes  which  occurred 
when  I  was  discussing  the  facts. 

The  Senate  will  recall  that  I  animadverted  with  some  severity 
on  what  I  believe  to  be  a  forgery  in  this  case.  The  Senator  from 
Ibwa  [Mr.  CUMMINS]  interposed  with  the  suggestion  that  he 
had  in  his  hand  a  paper  which,  though  not  in  evidence,  still 
seemed  to  contradict  my  theory  of  that  deposit  slip.  I  have  this 
morning,  with  his  permission,  examined  that  paper,  and  I  find 
that  it  is  the  affidavit  of  one  Jarvis  O.  Newton,  who  was  a  wit- 
ness in  the  case,  and  who  is  the  chief  clerk  of  the  bank  in 
which  the  Holstlaw  money  in  claimed  to  have  been  deposited. 
To  Newton's  affidavit  there  is  attached  the  original  deposit  slip, 
which  was  introduced  in  evidence  before  the  committee.  There 
is  also  attached  to  Newton's  affidavit  a  card  bearing  the  signa- 
tures of  the  officers  of  the  Holstlaw  Bank,  indicating  that  it 
was  a  correspondent  of  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago,  and  author- 
izing those  officers  to  draw  against  its  account  there.  The  only 
fact  contained  in  this  affidavit  not  contained  in  the  testimony 
is  the  statement  of  Mr.  Newton  that  he,  and  not  Hoist-law,  ma-de 
out  this  deposit  slip. 

Mr.  President,  any  man  who  will  examine  Newton's  signature 
to  this  affidavit,  and  then  examine  the  writing  of  the  name 
"Holstlaw  Bank"  on  that  deposit  slip  will  conclude  that  New- 
ton did  not  make  it  out,  and  this  very  paper,  to  my  mind,  still 
further  confirms  my  theory  that  a  forgery  had  been  committed. 
The  name  "Holstlaw  Bank,"  as  it  appears  on  this  deposit  slip, 
indicates  that  it  was  written  by  a  man  not  skilled  in  penman- 
ship and  _not  very  highly  educated.  The  name  "Jarvis  O.  New- 
ton," as  it  is  signed  to  this  affidavit,  gives  evidence  that  he  is 
accustomed  at  least  to  writing  his  own  name,  and  the  penman- 
ship appears  to  me  very  much  better  than  that  of  the  man  who 
wrote  "Helstlaw  Bank"  at  the  top  of  the  deposit  slip. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.    Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from  Texas 
yi»ld  to  the  Senator  from  Iowa? 
Mr.  BAILEY.    I  do. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  Mr.  President,  I  understand  that  the  affidavit, 
together  with  the  card  which  is  identified  in  the  affidavit,  can 
not  be  admitted  as  evidence  without  unanimous  consent.  I  sub- 
mit to  the  Senator  from  Texas  and  to  the  Senate  whether  the 
affidavit  and  the  card  shall  be  so  admitted  and  so  considered. 
The  slip' itself  was  introduced  in  evidence.  It  bears  the  identi- 
fication of  the  committee,  or  the  stenographer  of  the  committee, 
and  if  the  Senate  does  not  desire  to  consider  the  affidavit  and 
the  card  I  shall  ask  that  the  slip  itself  be  detached  .and  given 
to  the  Sergeant  at  Arms  for  the  consideration  and  examination 
of  any  Senator  who  may  desire  to  examine  it. 
80595 — 9673 


33 

Mr.  BAILEY.  There  is  no  question  about  that  being  the 
identical  slip  which  is  in  evidence  and  which  is  photographed 
in  the  brief  of  counsel  for  the  petitioners.  Nor  has  any  ques- 
tion been  raised  about  the  Holstlaw  Bank,  of  luka,  being  a  cor- 
respondent of  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago,  and  that  is  the  only 
fact  which  this  card  could  serve  to  establish. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  say  now  what  I  did  not  say  yesterday 
afternoon,  because  I  hesitated  to  put  into  the  records  of  Con- 
gress anything  which  could  possibly  be  construed  as  a  reflection 
on  a  great  financial  institution.  But,  since  my  theory  of  this 
deposit  slip  has  been  challenged,  I  think  I  owe  it  to  the  Senate  and 
to  the  country  to  say  that  my  suspicion  against  the  genuineness 
of  it  on  account  of  the  misspelled  name  was  intensified  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  prosecution  did  not  produce  the  books  of 
the  Chicago  bank  and  the  luka  bank,  instead  of  the  deposit 
slip.  Those  books  were  the  best  evidence  of  the  deposit,  if  it 
was  made,  and  they  could  not  well  have  been  doctored.  They 
could  not  have  been  easily  falsified,  for  if  an  attempt  had  been 
made  as  an  afterthought  to  insert  this  credit  it  would  appear 
on  the  books  as  an  interpolation;  and  if  to  avoid  the  appear- 
ance of  an  interpolation  it  had  been  entered  at  some  subsequent 
period,  it  would  then  appear  out  of  its  chronological  order. 
There  were  three  items  in  the  books  of  these  two  banks  which 
could  not  have  furnished  false  evidence,  and  yet  instead  of 
calling  any  of  the  officers  of  those  banks  to  produce  the  books 
of  each  before  that  committee  they  brought  the  chief  clerk  of 
the  bank  there  with  a  deposit  slip,  the  only  evidence  of  the 
transaction  which  could  have  been  easily  manufactured  for 
the  occasion. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.     Mr.   President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from 
Texas  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Iowa? 

Mr.  BAILEY.     I  do. 

Mr.  CUMMINS.  The  Senator  from  Texas  has  more  than 
once  said  that  he  believed  the  best  way  to  evolve  the  truth  of 
this  controversy  was  to  regard  it  as  in  a  sense  a  lawsuit,  in 
charge,  on  one  side  by  counsel  for  the  Tribune,  on  the  other 
side  by  counsel  for  Mr.  LORIMER.  May  I  ask  why  the  counsel 
for  Mr.  LORIMER,  if  there  was  any  question  about  the  deposit 
of  this  money,  did  not  call  for  the  books  of  the  bank  and  did 
not  inquire  into  the  accounts  of  the  bank  at  luka?  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  failure  of  Mr.  LORIMER  to  make  any  inquiry  into 
this  matter  is  high  evidence  at  least  that  he  did  not  believe, 
nor  did  his  counsel  believe,  that  this  slip  is  a  forgery.  I  ask 
again,  if  the  matter  is  material,  why  did  not  the  committee 
seek  the  best  and  highest  evidence  and  complete  their  investi- 
gation in  that  respect? 

Mr.  BAILEY.  That  is  a  perfectly  legitimate  comment  on 
what  I  have  said,  but  my  answer  to  it  is  that  it  was  the  subse- 
quent discovery  which  raised  these  grave  questions.  Until  the 
reply  brief  of  the  counsel  for  the  petitioners  was  printed  it  did 
not  appear  that  it  was  c'aimed  that  Holstlaw  had,  in  his  own 
handwriting,  made  out  this  deposit  slip.  And  I  venture  to  say 
that  when  it  was  offered  in  evidence  no  member  of  the  com- 
mittee observed  the  misspelling  of  Holstlaw's  name,  and  I  am 
reasonably  certain  that  it  also  escaped  the  attorneys  on  both 
sides. 

80395 — 0673 3 


34 

I  now  return  to  a  consideration  of  the  law ;  and  here,  sir, 
the  atmosphere  clarifies.  Here  the  earth  which  may  have  been 
unsteady  while  we  discussed  the  testimony  grows  firm  at  once. 
We  may  have  been  mistaken  about  the  veracity  of  some  wit- 
nesses and  the  mendacity  of  others.  We  may  have  believed 
that  the  man  swore  falsely  who  swore  the  truth,  and  we  may 
have  believed  that  the  man  swore  truthfully  who  swore  a  false- 
hood, because  God  has  not  endowed  us  with  a  faculty  to 
determine  with  certainty  the  truth  or  falsity  of  human  testi- 
mony. We  can  consider  the  motives  and  surroundings,  and  we 
can  consider  the  character  and  temptations  of  witnesses,  but 
when  we  have  considered  all  of  that  the  wisest  of  us  may  be 
misled,  because  the  vilest  liar  will  sometimes  swear  the  truth, 
and  the  most  truthful  gentleman  will  sometimes  testify  honestly 
to  a  mistake.  But,  sir,  when  we  reach  the  law  the  whole  case 
changes,  and  we  can  speak  of  it  with  almost  the  exactness  of  a 
science. 

Here  I  say  to  my  friends  who  have  spoken  on  the  other  side ; 
here  I  say  to  my  friends  who  have  net  spoken  on  either  side ; 
here  I  say  to  those  Senators  who  have  not  yet  determined  in 
their  own  minds  what  their  duty  requires  of  them,  that  for 
the  purposes  of  this  branch  of  the  argument,  I  can  admit  either 
view  of  the  testimony.  I  can  admit  that  every  vote  which 
has  been  challenged  by  any  kind  of  testimony  was  bribed  and 
must  therefore  be  rejected,  and  the  law  still  decides  this  case. 
If  we  eliminate  the  votes  of  Browne,  Wilson  and  Broderick,  who 
have  been  accused  of  giving  these  bribes  and  though  their  people 
have  answered  that  accusation  by  re-electing  them  to  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Illinois,  we  can  admit  that  their  people  were  mistaken 
and  that  Browne,  Broderick  and  Wilson  were  bribe  givers.  Let 
us  say,  besides,  that  White,  Link,  Beckemeyer  and  Holstlaw  were 
all  bribed.  They  are  the  four  men  who  are  often  said  to  have 
confessed  that  they  were  bribed  to  vote  for  LORIMER,  but  that 
statement  is  not  supported  by  the  testimony.  Link  swears  he 
was  not  bribed  and  that  he  never  received  any  money  for  vot- 
ing for  LORIMER.  Beckemeyer  swears  that  he  never  was  offered 
or  promised  any  money  for  voting  for  LORIMER,  though  he  does 
say  that  when  he  received  certain  money  he  was  told  that  it 
was  his  "Lorimer  money,"  and  even  Holstlaw  swears  that  he 
had  announced  his  purpose  to  vote  for  LORIMER  before  money 
was  ever  mentioned  to  him.  But  let  us  say  that  Link  and 
Beckemeyer  and  Holstlaw  and  White  were  bribed.  Let  us,  Mr. 
President,  go  even  further  than  this  and  say  that  Shephard 
and  Clark  and  the  dead  man  Luke  were  bribed,  and  without 
stopping  at  that  let  us  go  on  and  say  that  De  Wolf  was  bribed, 
though  no  man  can  read  this  testimony  and  believe  that  for 
an  instant.  .That  makes  11  tainted  votes,  and  if  we  subtract 
them  all  from  the  108  votes  received  by  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  he 
was  still  duly  and  legally  elected. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  JOINT  ASSEMBLY. 

In  the  joint  assembly  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  WILLIAM 
LORIMER  received  108  votes,  Albert  J.  Hopkins  received  70  votes, 
and  Lawrence  B.  Stringer  received  24  votes,  making  a  total  of 
202  votes  cost  on  that  ballot;  and  as  WILLIAM  LORIMER  had  re- 
ceived a  majority  of  that  number,  he  was  declared  by  the  proper 
presiding  officer  to  have  been  duly  chosen  a  Senator  from  the 
State  of  Illinois.  There  is  no  controversy  as  to  the  total  num- 
ber of  votes  cast,  or  as  to  the  number  of  votes  received  by 
80595—9673 


35 

WILLIAM  LORIMER;  hut  the  validity  of  his  election  is  denied 
upon  the  ground  that  it  was  procured  through  the  bribery  of 
legislators,  though  the  number  of  legislators  so  bribed  has  not 
been  agreed  on  by  any  two  of  the  Senators  who  have  advised  the 
Senate  to  declare  that  election  void.  In  the  early  stages  of 
the  debate  it  was  only  claimed  that  7  of  the  votes  cast  for  Mr. 
LORIMER  were  shown  by  the  testimony  to  have  been  corrupted ; 
and  it  was  promptly  answered  that  even  if  it  were  admitted 
that  7  votes  had  been  corrupted  by  Mr.  LORIMER' s  friends  with- 
out his  knowledge  his  election  would  still  be  valid.  The  dis- 
cussion revolved  about  that  point  for  several  days,  and  then 
the  Senator  from  New  York,  perceiving  the  weakness  of  a  con- 
tention based  upon  those  7  votes,  invented  a  new  theory  of  the 
case,  which  I  listened  to  with  amazement.  He  followed  the 
Senators  from  Idaho  and  Iowa  in  claiming  that  if  7  votes  were 
shown  to  have  been  corrupted  the  election  was  thus  vitiated ; 
but  not  willing  to  trust  his  case  to  a  rule  which  he  must  have 
known  could  be  demonstrated  to  have  no  foundation  in  law  or 
in  logic,  he  worked  himself  up  into  such  a  frenzy  of  indigna- 
tion that  he  finally  declared  that  the  entire  30  votes  of  what  he 
denounced  as  "Browne's  band  of  robbers"  must  be  rejected;  and 
the  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  BURTON],  who  followed  him,  not  to 
be  outdone  by  the  Senator  from  New  York  in  this  crusade 
against  Illinois,  went  to  the  extreme  of  declaring  that  the  whole 
legislature  of  that  State  was  so  corrupt  as  to  be  incapable  of 
conducting  an  honest  election  for  a  Senator.  Mr.  President, 
these  claims  are  so  extravagant  that  nothing  but  the  high 
sources  from  which  they  come  would  save  them  from  being  ab- 
solutely ridiculous,  and  I  can  not  feel  that  I  am  required  to 
answer  them.  I  shall  therefore  leave  them  aside;  and  address 
myself  to  the  real  question  here,  which  was  raised  by  the  Senator 
from  Idaho  and  the  Senator  from  Iowa  and  indorsed  by  the  Sen- 
ator from  New  York ;  and  that  question  is  whether,  if  the  7  votes 
of  White,  Browne,  Beckemeyer,  Link,  Wilson,  Holstlaw  and 
Broderick  be  rejected,  there  was  still  a  legaJ  and  valid  election. 
While  I  do  not  concede  that  these  votes  were  in  fact  corrupt,  I 
am  perfectly  willing,  for  the  purpose  of  this  branch  of  the  argu- 
ment, to  admit  that  they  were,  and  that  they  must  therefore  be 
rejected.  Deducting  those  7  votes  from  LORIMER'S  108  would 
leave  him  101,  and  deducting  them  also  from  the  total  vote  of  202 
would  leave  195,  of  which  the  101  legal  votes  received  by 
LORIMER  would  constitute  a  clear  majority,  and  make  his  elec- 
tion lawful  beyond  any  doubt. 

At  this  point  in  the  argument,  Mr.  President,  T  encounter  my 
difference  with  the  Senators  from  Idaho  and  Iowa,  who  con- 
tend that  while  it  is  right  to  subtract  the  seven  corrupt,  and 
therefore  illegal,  votes  from  LORIMER.  it  is  wrong  to  also  sub- 
tract them  from  the  total  number  of  votes  cast.  Neither  the 
Senator  from  Idaho  nor  the  Senator  from  Iowa  nor  the  Sena- 
tor from  New  York  claims  that  those  seven  rejected  votes  can 
be  bestowed  on  either  of  Mr.  LORIMER'S  opponents  or  be  divided 
between  them  according  to  some  unascertained  proportion;  but 
while  declaring  that  those  votes  shall  not  be  counted  for  LORI- 
MER, and  admitting  that  they  can  not  be  counted  for  Hopkins 
or  Stringer,  they  still  maintain  that  somehow  or  somehow  else 
they  must  be  included  in  the  total  number  of  votes  cast.  Such 
a  proceeding,  sir,  can  find  no  warrant  in  the  law,  for  upon  no 
80595—9673 


36 

principle  with  which  I  am  familiar  can  we  reject  a  vote  as  it 
has  been  cast  and  still  count  it  for  any  other  purpose. 

Under  our  own  practice  in  the  Senate  we  do  not  include 
votes  which  could  be  cast  and  counted,  but  are  not  cast,  in  esti- 
mating the  total  number,  and  we  very  recently  overruled  the 
Chair  when  he  attempted  to  count  them  simply  to  make  a 
quorum.  If  on  a  roll  call  of  the  Senate  the  affirmative  of  a 
proposition  receives  35  votes  and  the  negative  receives  34,  it 
would  pass  notwithstanding  10  Senators,  one  after  another, 
might  rise  and  announce  their  pairs,  coupling  the  announcement 
with  a  statement  that  they  would  vote  "no"  if  at  liberty  to 
vote,  and  yet,  sir,  upon  this  record  showing  that  of  the  Senators 
present,  44  of  them  were  opposed  to  the  passage  of  the  measure, 
it  would  pass,  because  only  the  69  who  voted  and  were  entitled 
to  vote,  could  be  considered  and  the  35  affirmative  votes  would 
be  a  majority  of  them. 

At  almost  every  session  of  the  Senate  we  illustrate  the  prop- 
osition that  no  member  of  a  legislative  assembly  except  one  who 
has  a  right  to  vote  and  who  has  lawfully  exercised  that  right  can 
be  included  in  any  computation  or  counted  for  any  purpose.  But 
while  I  think  the  practice  here  conforms  to  the  principle  for 
which  I  contend,  this  precise  question  has  never  before  been  pre- 
sented to  the  Senate  and  has  not,  therefore,  been  decided  by 
this  body.  It  is  true  that  the  Senator  from  Iowa  and  the  Sen- 
ator from  Idaho  have  read  to  the  Senate  extracts  from  the 
views  which  Senator  Hoar  and  Senator  FKYE  filed  in  the  Payne 
case,  but  they  can  not  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  those  views 
were  not  accepted  by  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections, 
and  they  must  know  that  the  resolution  which  Senator  Hoar 
offered  in  accordance  with  them  was  defeated  on  a  roll  call  of 
the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  44  to  17.  When  reading  that  extract 
from  Senator  Hoar's  paper,  the  Senator  from  Iowa  found  that 
the  Massachusetts  Senator's  figures  would  not  work  out  the 
proper  result,  and  he  suggested  that  there  was  a  misprint  by 
which  Senator  Hoar  was  made  to  say  six  where  he  meant  to 
say  seven ;  but  if  the  Senator  from  Iowa  had  read  that  paper 
to  its  conclusion,  he  would  have  found  the  same  figures  re- 
peated in  another  paragraph  of  it,  and  we  are  hardly  at  liberty 
to  suppose  that  they  were  a  misprint  But  whether  the  calcu- 
lation of  the  Massachusetts  Senator  was  right  or  wrong  is  not 
material  here,  and  the  only  question  which  concerns  us  is 
whether  his  law  was  right  or  wrong.  Senator  Hoar,  who 
drafted  that  paper  after  a  long  service,  in  which  he  honored 
both  his  State  and  his  country,  has  passed  from  among  us,  but 
Senator  FRYE,  who  joined  him  in  it,  is  still  a  Member  of  the 
Senate,  and  we  all  hope  that  he  will  remain  here  for  many  years 
to  aid  us  with  his  wise  and  patriotic  counsel ;  but,  sir,  those 
distinguished  Senators  could  not  induce  the  committee  to  accept 
their  views  and  their  resolution  was  rejected  by  a  most  decisive 
majority. 

Mr.   BORAH.     Mr.   President 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from 
Texas  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Idaho? 

Mr.  BAILEY.    I  do. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Upon  what  question  does  the  Senator  from 
Texas  understand  that  it  was  voted  down?  Not  upon  the  law? 

Mr.  BAILEY.     There  was  no  specific  proposition  voted  on, 
but  my  statement  was  that  the  resolution,  drawn  in  accordance 
80595—9673 


37 

with  the  report,  was  voted  down.  There  was  no  separate  vote 
on  any  single  statement  in  it,  of  course. 

Mr.  BORAH.  The  question  involved  was  whether  or  not 
they  would  make  an  investigation. 

Mr.  BAILEY.    That  is  true. 

Mr.  BORAH.  And  the  Senate  voted  that  it  would  not  pro- 
ceed to  investigate. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  But  if  the  argument  of  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  had  been  concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  I  think 
it  absolutely  certain  that  an  investigation  ought  to  have  been, 
and  would  have  been,  ordered. 

Mr.  BORAH.  That  being  true,  if  the  Senate  had  accepted 
the  view  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  as  to  the  evidence. 
The  committee  were  divided  as  to  whether  or  not  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  it  in  proceeding  to  investigate. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  Not  only  that,  Mr.  President,  but  there  was 
also  the  question  whether  if  there  were  corruption  at  all  it 
was  sufficient  to  have  affected  the  result.  The  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  argued  this  subtraction  and  elimination,  and 
according  to  his  theory  of  the  case  there  was  sufficient  evidence; 
but  the  Senate  rejected  his  view. 

THE    CLARK    CASE. 

The  Senator  from  Iowa  thought  he  had  found  a  distinct  and 
authoritative  approval  of  his  contention  in  the  Clark  case,  and 
he  ventured  to  say  that  while  the  report  in  that  case  was 
never  passed  on  by  the  Senate,  it  expressed  the  unanimous 
judgment  ef  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections.  Of 
course,  Mr.  President,  I  know  that  the  Senator  from  Iowa  did 
not  intend  to  mislead  the  Senate,  but  his  statement,  if  ac- 
cepted, would  mislead  us  very  widely.  In  the  first  p!ace,  every 
Senator  understands  that  the  argument  of  a  report  represents 
only  the  member  of  the  committee  who  prepares  it,  and  that 
the  conclusion  only  can  be  fairly  attributed  to  the  committee. 
In  this  very  case  which  is  now  before  the  Senate  my  name  is 
signed  to  the  report  which  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
made,  and  yet  I  did  not  read  it  before  it  was  presented  to  the 
Senate.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  tendered  it  to  me  and 
I  very  promptly  told  him  that  I  did  not  want  to  read  it,  because 
I  held  myself  responsible  only  for  its  conclusion  and  not  for 
its  arguments  or  statements.  But,  sir,  I  could  understand  how 
the  Senator  from  Iowa  might  not  be  familiar  with  this  prac- 
tice, and  he  might  believe  that  every  report  in  all  of  its  argu- 
ments and  statements  was  thoroughly  considered  by  the  whole 
committee  and  approved  by  it.  He  can  not,  however,  be  ex- 
cused for  supposing  that  such  was  the  case  in  the  Clark  report, 
because  there  was  a  minority  report  filed  in  that  case,  and 
printed  immediately  following  the  committee's  report  from 
which  he  has  quoted,  and  in  the  very  second  paragraph  of  that 
minority  report  appears  this  distinct  and  emphatic  declaration : 

We  agreed  and  still  agree  to  the  resolution  reported  by  the  committee 
through  Its  chairman.  That  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  committee 
itself.  But  the  report  is  merely  the  writing  of  the  chairman  with  the 
aid  of  one  other  member  and  never  was  submitted  to  any  meeting  of 
the  committee,  and  therefore  can  not  be  considered  as  the  words  of  the 
committee. 

In  the  face  of  the  universal  practice  here,  I  would  not  con- 
sider the  report  of  the  Clark  case  as  expressing  more  than  the 
views  of  the  Senator  who  prepared  it,  and  when  to  the  general 
80595—9673 


38 

custom  of  the  Senate  is  added  the  specific  declaration  made  by 
the  members  of  the  committee,  the  arguments  in  that  paper 
must  be  regarded  as  expressing  only  the  individual  opinion  of 
the  Hon.  William  E.  Chandler.  If  we  had  nothing  before  us 
beyond  the  paper  of  Senator  Hoar  and  the  report  of  Senator 
Chandler,  I  would  still  maintain  with  the-  utmost  confidence 
that  the  rule  which  they  have  suggested  is  so  contrary  to  the 
reason  of  the  law  that  we  could  not  accept  it. 

THE  AUTHORITIES. 

But.  fortunately,  sir,  we  are  not  without  high  and  express 
authority  on  this  very  question.  The  textbooks  all  agree  in 
saying  that  an  illegal  vote  must  be  rejected,  and  that  propo- 
sition is  so  elementary  that  it  seems  almost  like  a  reflection 
upon  the  intelligence  of  the  S«nate  for  me  to  read  what  a  great 
text  writer  has  said  in  support  of  it;  but  as  what  I  am  now 
saying  may  be  read  by  those  who  are  not  so  familiar  with  the 
law  as  Senators  are  presumed  to  be,  I  will  occupy  a  moment  in 
reading  from  Paine's  work  on  Elections,  in  which  he  says : 

The  rule  is  well  settled  that  the  whole  vote  of  a  precinct  should  not 
be  thrown  out  on  account  of  Illegal  votes  if  It  be  practicable  to  ascer- 
tain the  number  of  the  illegal  votes,  and  the  candidate  for  whom  they 
were  cast,  in  order  to  reject  them  and  leave  the  legal  votes  to  be 
counted.  This  is  safer  than  the  rule  which  arbitrarily  apportions  the 
fraud  among  the  parties.  But  in  a  contest  for  a  seat  in  the  Forty- 
fifth  Congress,  the  Committee  on  Elections  said :  "In  purging  the 
polls  of  illegal  votes,  the  general  rule  is  that,  unless  it  is  shown  for 
which  candidate  they  were  cast,  they  are  to  be  deducted  from  the 
whole  vote  of  the  election  division,  and  not  from  the  candidates  having 
the  highest  number.  Of  course,  in  the  application  o'f  this  rule,  such 
illegal  votes  x  would  be  deducted  proportionately  from  both  candidates 
according  to  the  entire  vote  returned  for  each." 

In  another  and  subsequent  section  the  author  again  declares 
that— 

Where  illegal  votes  have  been  cast  the  true  rule  is  to  purge  the  poll 
by  first  proving  for  whom  they  were  cast,  and  thus  ascertain  the  real 
vote ;  but  if  this  can  not  be  done,  then  to  exclude  the  poll  altogether. 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  rule  laid  down  in  this  textbook  re- 
lates to  a  general  election  among  the  people,  I  answer  that  the 
law  according  to  which  we  must  decide  the  election  of  a  Senator 
is  exactly  the  same  law  according  to  which  the  courts  must 
decide  the  election  of  the  governor  of  a  State  or  the  sheriff  of 
a  county  or  the  constable  of  a  precinct.  Not  only,  sir,  do  the 
textbooks  say  that  an  illegal  vote  must  be  rejected,  but  the 
courts  have  said  the  same  thing  with  remarkable  unanimity ; 
nor  have  they  left  us  to  speculate  as  to  what  they  mean  by  the 
rejection  of  a  vote. 

DECIDED    BY    THE   COURTS. 

I  have  here  the  case  of  Charles  Bott  et  el.  v.  The  Secretary 
of  State,  decided  by  the  supreme  court  of  New  Jersey  in  June, 
1898,  and  reported  in  the  sixty-second  volume  of  the  New  Jer- 
sey Law  Reports.  Without  taking  the  time  to  state  the  facts 
in  that  case,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  read  this  extract  from  the 
opinion : 

Though  a  qualified  voter  succeeds  in  getting  his  name  on  the  poll  list 
and  a  ballet  in  the  ballot  box,  he  is  not  a  voter  voting  on  the  amend- 
ments unless  his  ballot  is  such  as  is  prescribed  by  law  and  conforms  to 
the  general  law  regulating  elections.  The  act  contains  no  provision  for 
the  certificate  and  return  of  the  ballots  that  were  rejected,  nor  does  it 
provide  for  an  inquiry  either  before  the  county  bnaods  of  election  or 
before  the  board  of  State  canvassers  with  respect  to  the  grounds  upon 
which  votes  have  been  rejected,  nor  are  either  of  these  boards  empow- 
80595—9673 


39 

ered  to  embody  in  their  official  action  any  results  other  than  such  as 
are  exhibited  by  the  official  statements  produced  before  them.  The  bal- 
lots returned  as  rejected  must  be  taken  to  have  been  properly  rejected, 
and  consequently  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  computation  of  the  votes 
cast  for  or  against  the  amendments.  Such  ballots  were  simply  nullities. 

Within  four  years  after  the  New  Jersey  court  had  delivered 
the  opinion  from  which  1  have  just  quoted  the  foregoing  ex- 
tract another  case  involving  a  similar  question  was  presented 
for  its  decision,  and  they  reaffirmed  the  doctrine  of  Bott  v.  The 
Secretary  of  State  in  the  following  language: 

Counsel  for  the  incumbent  contends  that  if  the  vote  of  the  township 
be  excluded  still  the  relator  can  not  succeed,  because  in  such  event  he 
would  not  have  been  elected  by  a  majority  of  all  the  ballots  cast  at  the 
election.  The  fact  is  as  stated,  but  the  argument  loses  sight  of  the 
decision  of  this  court  and  of  the  court  of  errors  and  appeals  in  the  case 
of  Bott  v.  Secretary  of  State.  (33  Vroom,  107 ;  S.  C.,  34  Id.,  289.) 

In  that  case  it  was  held  that  in  determining  whether  a  majority  of 
votes  had  been  received  for  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  only 
those  electors  who  lawfully  voted  for  or  against  the  amendment  are  to 
be  considered.  It  is  true  that  the  opinions  delivered  dealt  only  with  the 
language  of  a  given  clause  of  the  Constitution,  but  the  line  of"  reasoning 
is  applicable  with  equal  force  wherever  the  question  of  the  computation 
of  a  majority  of  votes  is  presented.  The  principle  announced  is  that 
ballots  cast  at  an  election  are  to'  be  deemed  votes  only  when  legally 
capable  of  being  counted  as  such,  and  that  in  determining  the  total 
vote  upon  which  a  majority  is  to  be  based  the  votes  that  may  figure  in 
the  result  and  not  the  ballots  that  were  cast  in  the  box  are  to  be 
considered. 

In  the  case  of  Louis  J.  Hopkins  v.  The  City  of  Duluth  et  al., 
decided  by  the  supreme  court  of  Minnesota  in  the  summer  of 
1900  and  reported  in  the  eighty-first  volume  of  the  Minnesota 
Reports,  I  find  the  same  question  considered  and  the  same  con- 
clusion reached.  That  case  turned  on  whether  the  26  votes  in 
question  should  be  rejected  as  an  expression  of  the  electors  but 
still  counted  in  estimating  the  total  number  of  votes  cast,  and 
this  is  what  the  court  said : 

Of  the  26  ballots  thus  excluded  by  the  trial  court,  5  had  either  the 
names  or  initials  of  the  voters  casting  them  written  thereon,  a_nd 
clearly  indicated  such  evidence  of  identification  of  the  persons  casting 
such  ballots  as  constituted  a  plain  and  palpable  fraud  upon  the  election 
law.  They  were  not  counted,  although. expressing  in  each  case  the 
voter's  choice  in  certain  respects.  (Pennington  v.  Hare,  60  Mhin.,  146: 
62  N.  W.,  116 ;  Truelsen  v.  Hugo,  supra,  p.  73.)  That  the  identified 
ballots  thus  deposited  should  be  excluded  from  the  total  vote  is  the  only 
reasonable  inference  that  follows  from  the  application  of  the  doctrine 
of  these  cases.  The  fraud  which  nullifies  the  choice  expressed  on  these 
ballots  must  logically  vitiate  their  use  for  any  purpose.  They  were 
void.  It  necessarily  follows  that  the  poll  list  can  not  be  regarded  as 
absolute  evidence  of  the  aggregate  vote  upon  which  the  constitutional 
majority  is  to  be  estimated. 

Thus,  Mr.  President,  we  have  the  authority  of  the  textbooks 
and  of  the  courts  for  saying  that  an  illegal  vote  must  be  re- 
jected for  all  purposes  and  that  it  can  not  be  considered  for 
any  purpose.  That.  sir.  is  not  only  the  law  and  the  logic,  but 
it  is  the  rule  best  calculated  to  promote  political  morality.  It 
treats  a  dishonest  vote  as  if  the  corrupt  legislator  who  cast  it 
were  civilly  dead,  at  least  in  that  transaction,  and  it  leaves  the 
result  to  be  determined  by  the  votes  of  honest  men. 

But,  Mr.  President,  when  I  have  thoroughly  fortified  my  posi- 
tion by  citations  from  the  textbooks  and  the  opinions  of  high 
courts  and  when  learned  Senators  on  the  other  side  have  agreed 
to  the  law  as  I  have  laid  it  down,  I  am  met  by  the  Senator  from 
New  York  [Mr.  ROOT]  with  the  suggestion  that  there  is  no  law 
according  to  which  we  must  decide  this  case.  Instead,  sir,  of 
offering  us  a  quotation  from  some  law  book  or  from  the  opinion 
of  some  great  judge,  he  lays  his  hand  upon  his  heart  and  ex- 
80595—9673 


40 

claims  with  a  dramatic  gesture  that  it  is  the  only  source  from 
which  we  are  compelled  to  take  our  law.  If  it  be  true,  Mr. 
President,  that  there  is  no  law  binding  us  to  judge  the  election, 
qualifications  and  returns  of  Senator,  then,  sir,  it  is  high  time 
that  we  were  making  one,  because  it  can  never  be  safe  in  a 
free  republic  like  ours  to  exempt  any  tribunal  charged  with  the 
duty  of  deciding  any  case  from  an  obligation  to  decide  that 
case  according  to  the  law  of  the  land. 

If  we  acknowledge  no  law  here,  what  right  will  we  have  to 
reproach  our  unlettered  constituents  if  they  acknowledge  no  law 
in  the  States  from  which  we  come.  That  doctrine  is  an  invi- 
tation and  an  encouragement  to  riot  and  anarchy.  Law,  sir, 
is  as  universal  as  God  and  nature,  and  it  inflicts  its  penal- 
ties on  all  who  disobey  it.  The  intellectual  and  physical  worlds 
have  their  laws  and  they  are  as  inexorable  as  fate  and  swifter 
far  than  justice.  If  we  violate  the  laws  of  health  and  gorge  our- 
selves at  the  table  or  overwork  ourselves  in  the  field,  we  must 
suffer  for  our  folly.  It  is  law,  sir,  which  holds  these  myriads 
of  worlds  in  their  safe  relation  to  each  other,  and  if  the  law 
of  gravitation  and  attraction  should  be  suspended  for  an 
instant  the  earth  would  perish,  and  amidst  the  wreck  of  matter 
and  the  crash  of  worlds  the  Senate  itself  would  disappear. 

Our  English  ancestors  once  established  the  kind  of  law  which 
the  Senator  from  New  York  pleads  with  us  to  adopt.  Finding 
the  common  law  so  technical  and  so  inflexible  that  it  often 
defeated  the  ends  of  justice,  they  instituted  what  they  called 
courts  of  chancery  and  appointed  chancellors  who  were  au- 
thorized to  decide  all  cases  coming  before  them  as  their  con- 
sciences directed.  But,  sir,  the  decisions  of  the  chancery 
courts  were  often  arbitrary  and  many  times  more  unjust  than 
those  made  according  to  the  common  law,  whose  defects  it  was 
supposed  that  this  court  of  chancery  would  correct.  It  was 
soon  found  that  the  consciences  of  the  different  chancellors 
varied,  as  one  man  said  with  more  wisdom  than  wit,  as  widely 
as  their  feet,  and  the  whole  system  of  equity  jurisprudence  was 
brought  into  such  disrepute  that  a  great  novelist  satirized  it  in 
a  story  which  will  live  as  long  as  men  read  the  English  lan- 
guage. 

We  were  never  so  foolish  as  the  country  from  which  we  de- 
rived our  institutions,,  for  we  have  always  required  chancellors 
to  decide  every  case  according  to  the  well-established  rules  of 
equity  jurisprudence,  and  a  chancellor  who  would  tell  a  suitor 
in  his  court  or  an  attorney  at  his  bar  that  he  would  ignore 
the  law  and  decide  the  case  according  to  his  conscience  would 
be  impeached  and  driven  in  disgrace  from  the  bench  whose 
powers  he  had  abused.  No,  sir,  Mr.  President,  there  are  no 
judges  in  this  country  who  can  decide  cases  according  to  their 
conscience  and  against  the  law.  When  we  come  to  make  the 
law,  we  take  counsel  of  our  conscience  and  even  of  our  hearts 
to  see  that  it  is  just  to  the  strong  and  rich  and  even  merciful 
to  the  weak  and  poor;  but  when  the  law  has  once  been  made 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  religiously  obey  it,  and  as  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  is  the  highest  assembly  in  this 
Republic,  so  it  stands  under  the  highest  obligation  to  obey 
the  law,  without  subterfuge  and  without  evasion.  The  law, 
sir,  is  the  safety  of  this  Nation;  it  is  the  safety  of  these  States, 
and  in  its  supremacy  lies  the  safety  of  every  man  who  has  a 
right  to  call  himself  an  American  citizen. 
80595—9673 


41 

The  Senator  from  New  York,  perceiving  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  declare  Mr.  LORIMER'S  election  void,  even  if  it  were 
admitted  that  every  legislator  against  whom  any  testimony  has 
been  offered  was  in  fact  influenced  by  bribery  to  vote  for  him, 
and  not  certain  that  the  Senate  will  accept  his  theory  that  there 
is  no  law  to  govern  us  in  our  decision,  has  invented  a  new  rule  of 
evidence  for  special  application  to  this  case.  Assuming  that 
bribery  has  been  proved  against  certain  members  of  the  Illinois 
Legislature,  he  proceeds  to  deliver  the  Senate  a  lecture  upon  the 
peculiarity  of  legislative  corruption,  and  tells  us  that  wherever 
any  corruption  at  all  is  found,  it  is  but  a  fraction  of  that  which 
really  exists,  and  that  from  the  little  which  we  may  discover 
we  must  infer  the  existence  of  very  much  more.  That,  sir,  is  a 
startling  doctrine,  and  I  do  not  think  the  Senator  from  New 
York  would  venture  to  urge  it  upon  any  court;  because  it  re- 
verses the  presumption  that  every  man  is  honest  until  the  con- 
trary is  shown  by  some  competent  evidence.  I  dp  not  believe 
that  it  has  ever  before  been 'contended  in  the  presence  of  an 
intelligent  audience  that  when  some  members  of  an  assembly 
have  been  shown  to  be  corrupt  all  of  its  other  members  fall 
instantly  under  a  just  suspicion. 

Not  only,  sir,  is  the  presumption  which  the  Senator  from 
New  York  indulges  at  war  with  every  rule  of  enlightened  juris- 
prudence, but  it  is  not  supported  by  common  experience.  I 
have  generally  found  that  where  any  corruption  is  discovered, 
the  extent  of  it  is  always  grossly  exaggerated.  I  have  seen  the 
newspapers  filled  with  sensational  charges  of  corruption  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  and  I  have  seen  committees  appointed  to  in- 
vestigate "those  charges,  but,  sir,  with  rare  exceptions,  it  has 
always  transpired  that  there  was  no  reasonable  foundation  for 
them  and  that  they  had  their  origin  in  the  idle  talk  of  men  who 
had  magnified  small  circumstances  until  what  had  at  first  been 
whispered  as  a  bare  suspicion  had  come  to  be  openly  asserted  as 
a  definite  and  positive  fact. 

I  am  sure  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  is  wrong  when  he 
tells  us  that  we  must  infer  an  extensive  corruption  whenever 
any  corruption  is  revealed ;  but,  sir,  even  if  he  were  right,  as  a 
general  proposition,  I  am  absolutely  certain  that  he  is  wrong  in 
this  particular  case,  for  never  in  the  history  of  American  poli- 
tics was  a  more  determined  effort  made  to  invalidate  an  elec- 
tion and  discredit  a  man.  The  parties  behind  this  prosecution, 
it  is  true,  were  not  after  the  legislators  whom  they  charged 
with  accepting  bribes,  but  they  were  after  Senator  LORIMER; 
and  they  have  left  nothing  undone  to  taint  his  election.  Indeed, 
sir,  they  traded  with  men  whom  they  call  bribe  takers,  and 
granted  immunity  for  both  bribery  and  perjury  to  all  who 
%vould  aid  them  in  their  effort  to  impeach  the  election  of  Mr. 
LORIMER.  Holstlaw  had  been  called  before  the  grand  jury  of 
Sangamon  county  and  examined  concerning  a  State  furniture 
contract.  He  was  asked  if  he  had  written  a  certain  letter,  and 
he  swore  that  he  had  not.  It  happened  that  the  State's  Attor- 
ney had  the  letter  which  Holstlaw  denied  writing  in  his  posses- 
sion at  that  very  time,  and  Holstlaw  was  promptly  indicted  for 
perjury;  but  though  they  had  the  physical  and  incontrovertible 
•evidence  of  his  guilt,_  they  agreed  to  release  him  if  he  would 
sign  a  statement  admitting  that  Broderick  had  paid  him  money 
on  account  of  his  vote  for  LORIMER. 

So  it  was  with  Beckemeyer  and  Link.  They  swore  they 
80595 — 9673 


42 

had  not  been  at  St.  Louis.  If  they  had  been  there — and  the 
district  attorney  had  physical  proof  in  the  shape  of  the  hotel 
registers  that  they  were  there — they  had  perjured  themselves 
and  the  State  had  the  evidence  to  insure  their  conviction.  But 
what  did  the  State's  Attorney  do?  Did  he  drag  these  culprits 
before  the  bar  of  public  justice  and  vindicate  the  outraged  law 
by  their  conviction  ?  No,  sir,  he  compromised  with  them,  and 
turned  them  loose  to  continue  their  nefarious  practices  upon  con- 
dition that  they  would  testify  to  bribery  in  LORIMER'S  election ! 

With  the  whole  machinery  of  Illinois,  aided  by  rich  and 
powerful  newspapers,  at  work  on  the  ease,  do  you  believe  there 
was  any  corruption  which  they  did  not  uncover?  They  dragged 
old  man  De  Wolf  before  the  courts  and  before  the  committee 
and  soiled  his  name  with  the  suggestion  of  dishonor,  when  the 
only  proof  against  him  was  that  he  had  bought  a  piece  of  land 
for  $#,600  of  which  he  paid  $600  in  cash  and  secured  the  bal- 
ance by  giving  a  mortgage  not  only  on  the  land  he  bought,  but 
by  also  including  in  it  the  land  which  he  previously  owned. 
This  man,  an  industrious  and  an  upright  farmer,  could  easily 
have  saved  $600  out  of  his  more  than  $3000  salary;  but,  sir, 
these  hounds  of  hell  dragged  him  before  the  public  and  dis- 
gra'ced  him,  or  tried  to  do  so,  by  charging  that  he  had  sold 
his  vote. 

They  found  one  man  who  had  bought  some  diamonds  while  a 
member  of  that  legislature,  and  they  exhibited  him  to  the  world 
as  a  bribe  taker,  and  as  an  evidence  of  his  guilt  they  introduced 
the  extravagance  which  led  him  to  buy  $105  worth  of  diamonds. 
[Laughter.] 

With  an  organized  search  like  this,  dragging  men  so  little 
subject  to  suspicion  before  the  public  and  charging  them  with 
the  gravest  of  all  crimes,  who  doubts  that  they  exhausted  the 
list?  I  do  not. 

But  while  the  Senator  from  New  York  has  gone  far  beyond 
what  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  this  case  will  justify,  he 
has  not  gone  so  far  as  the  Senator  from  Ohio  has  done. 
Indeed,  sir,  the  Senator  from  Ohio  declared  that  such  cor- 
ruption existed  in  that  legislature  as  to  render  it  doubtful  if 
it  could  have  held  an  honest  election.  Unless  I  read  it,  the 
Senators  who  hear  me  may  think  that  I  am  mistaken  in  at- 
tributing such  an  extreme  declaration  to  the  Senator  from  Ohio ; 
but  here  it  is : 

The  whole  record  Is  interspersed  with  accounts  of  departures  from 

?arty  affiliations,  fake  letters,  jack  pots,  bathroom  conferences,  unlaw- 
ul  promises  relating  to  office,  hurried  conferences,  and  frantic  efforts 
to  cover  their  tracks  and  escape  from  the  consequences  of  their  wrong- 
doing. It  is  connected  also  with  the  receipt  of  bribes  and  with  gen- 
eral corruption  in  the  legislature.  Who  will  say,  in  the  face  of  all 
this  evidence,  that  any  election  by  that  legislature  would  be  a  sound  and 
a  valid  one? 

Thus  he  indicts  a  whole  legislature,  impedes  its  electoral  ma- 
chinery and  denies  its  right  to  perform  one  of  its  most  in- 
portant  functions  upon  the  testimony  of  men  whose  very  pres- 
ence he  would  shun  as  a  pestilence.  Mr.  President,  if  I  were 
actuated  purely  by  a  personal  friendship  for  Senator  LORIMER, 
which  I  am  not — for  while  I  have  served  with  him  in  the  other 
House  and  in  this  Senate,  and  while  I  never  knew  him  to  tell 
a  lie  or  to  do  anything  that  the  most  honorable  man  might  not 
do,  I  have  never  talked  with  him  20  minutes  in  my  life — but, 
if  I  were  actuated  purely  by  a  personal  regard  for  him,  I  would 
prefer  to  see  the  Senate  unseat  him,  for  if  the  Illinois  Legis- 
80595 — 9673 


43 

lature  is  not  as  corrupt  as  the  Senator  from  Ohio  says  it  is — 
and  since  the  whole  basis  upon  which  his  right  to  a  seat  here 
is  denied  is  that  it  is  composed  of  a  band  of  thieves  and  rob- 
bers— it  would  answer  such  a  vote  of  the  Senate  by  imme- 
diately re-electing  the  Senator  from  Illinois. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  nothing  in  this  record  to  justify  the 
sweeping  and  wholesale  condemnation  pronounced  against  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois  by  the  Senator  from  Ohio. 
True,  sir,  that  there  is  proof  that  there  was  much  loose  talk 
about  the  use  of  money  at  Springfield;  but  outside  of  the  self- 
confessed  perjurers  there  is  absolutely  no  proof  whatever  that 
money  was  used  in  the  senatorial  election  or  in  any  other  matter. 
Even  White  when  testifying  that  Browne  assured  him  that  he 
would  receive  about  $1,000  "from  other  sources,"  admitted  that 
he  did  not,,  up  to  that  time,  know  anything  about  the  so-called 
"jack  pot."  He  said  that  he  had  heard  from  men  who  had 
served  in  previous  legislatures  that  there  was  a  fund  divided 
among  members  at  the  end  of  each  session;  but  that  he  had  not 
been  advised  of  any  such  fund  raised  or  to  be  distributed  to 
members  of  that  legislature;  and  that  was  only  nine  days  be- 
fore the  legislature  adjourned.  With  the  knowledge  of  White's 
character,  furnished  by  his  own  testimony,  who  can  doubt  that 
if  a  jack  pot  really  existed  in  that  legislature  he  would  have 
been  one  of  its  active  agents  and  beneficiaries?  Curran  swore 
that  White  sought  to  profit  by  his  position  as  a  member  of  a  com- 
mittee, and  although  he  had  been  the  representative  of  a  labor 
organization,  at  the  preceding  session  of  the  legislature  he  was 
so  base  as  to  attempt  to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  working  women  of  that  state.  Not  only  that !  But  he 
complained  at  Mr.  Doyle  and  others,  who  were  representing  the 
labor  organizations  at  Springfield  during  that  session  of  the 
legislature,  because  they  had  not  offered  him  anything  for  his 
vote  or  his  influence,  and  denounced  them  in  language  which  I 
hesitate  to  incorporate  into  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  as  "the 
damnedest  cheapest  bunch"  he  had  ever  seen.  Standing  in  the 
corridors  of  the  capitol  with  outstretched  ihand  soliciting  a  bribe 
even  from  the  representatives  of  the  labor  organizations  to 
whose  support  he  owed  his  election,  does  any  man  believe  that 
White  was  ignorant  of  a  jack  pot,  if  one  existed,  until  nine 
days  before  the  legislature  adjourned? 

Representative  Shaw,  to  whom  I  have  already  once  referred 
and  for  whose  intelligence  and  integrity  I  have  freely  vouched, 
testified  that  there  was  much  talk  about  the  use  of  money  at 
Springfield,  but  he  also  testified  that  no  money  was  ever  offered 
him;  that  he  saw  no  money  used,  and  that  he  did  not  know  of 
any  facts  which  would  justify  the  charge  that  it  had  been  used. 
For  the  information  of  the  Senate  on  this  point,  I  will  read  Mr. 
Shaw's  testimony. 

Mr.  AUSTRIAN.  Well.  I  withdraw  the  objection,  provided  counsel 
permits  the  witness  to  testify  and  does  not  testify  himself ;  that  is  all. 

Senator  BURROWS.  The  objection  is  withdrawn.  That  will  save 
time.  Answer  the  question.  Read  the  question. — A.  Really,  I  do 
not  know  whether  I  had  any  talk  with  Mr.  Groves  or  not.  I  do  not 
remember  any  conversation. 

Judge  HANECY.  If  you  did  have  any  conversation  with  him,  did 
you  say  to  him  or  in  his  presence  that  you  had  been  offered  money  or 
that  you  could  get  money  for  voting  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER? — A.  I 
did  not. 

Judge  HANECY.     That  is  all. 

Senator  BURROWS.     Anything  further? 

Mr.  AUSTRIAN.     Yes:" just  a  moment. 
80595—96?:: 


44 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Jacob  Groves  with  reference  to  money 
being  paid  at  Springfield  or  offered  at  Springfield  for  votes  for 
I'nited  States  Senator? — A.  Well,  the  talk  was  kind  of  common  down 
there  at  the  time  ;  I  do  not  know  ;  I  might  have  ;  I  would  not  be  posi- 
tive about  that.  They  were  talking,  joking  away  frequently,  some- 
times. 

Q.  And  sometimes  serious  talk  ? — A.    Perhaps,  serious  ;  yes. 

Q.  Why  did  White  say  that  his  constituency  were  sore  at  him? — A. 
Well,  I  presume  because  they  were. 

Q.  Why? — A.    Why  were  they  sore  at  him? 

Q.  Yes. — A.   Because  he  voted  for  LORIMER. 

Mr.  AUSTRIAN.     That  is  all. 

Judge  HANECY.  You  heard  a  great  deal  of  jocular  talk  all  through 
the  regular  sessions,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  about  money  that 
could  or  would  or  might  be  used  for  different  things,  didn't' you? — A. 
Yes  ;I  heard  of  a  great  many  barrels  being  opened, but  I  did  not  see  any. 

Q.  You  never  heard  and  never  knew  anything  about  that,  except  tlmt 
general  jocular  talk? — A.  That  is  all  I  knew  about  it. 

Q.  That  is  all. — A.  I  heard  of  barrels  being  opened,  out  when  they 
were  opened,  they  were  apples. 

Senator  FRAZIER.  That  talk  with  respect  to  money  increased  about 
that  time,  or  immediately  preceding  the  election  of  Senator  LORI- 
MER  ; — A.  No ;  I  don't  believe  it  did. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  often  true  at  Washington  as  it  was  at 
Springfield,  that  when  these  "barrels"  of  which  we  hear  so 
much  are  opened,  they  turn  out  to  be  apples  instead  of  gold, 
and  the  corruption  which  suspicious  minds  are  ready  to  insin- 
uate against  everybody  is  seldom  based  upon  any  better  reason. 

But  the  Senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  ROOT]  says  that  Mr. 
Donohue,  whom  he  describes  as  a  stanch  old  Democrat,  testi- 
fied that  there  was  corruption;  and  he  read  this  from  Mr.  Dono- 
hue's  testimony : 

That  was  the  general  talk,  and  I  could  not  trace  It  down ;  I  could 
not  tell  now  who  said  it,  and  then  that  kind  of  died  away,  and  then 
after  the  election  of  Mr.  LORIMER  the  thing  started  again  that  they 
were — everything  was  not  straight  down  there  at  Springfield  with 
reference  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator.  And  everybody,  I 
think — I  was  suspicious  myself  about  the  way  things  went  down  there. 
Of  course,  I  didn't  have  any  direct  evidence,  only  from  general  appear- 
ance, I  could  not  see  why  so  many  Democrats  were  going  over  in  a  body 
to  vote  for  a  Republican.  They  may  have  had  reasons,  and  be  more 
liberal  in  their  views  than  I  am,  and  might  have  gone  over.  I  could 
not  see  it  that  way.  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  I  am  a  pretty  strong 
partisan. 

In  passing,  I  want  to  call  the  Senate's  attention  to  a  rather 
remarkable  omission  which  the  Senator  from  New  York  made 
in  quoting  this  testimony  of  Donohue.  Immediately  preceding 
the  quotation  which  I  have  just  read — and  when  I  say  immedi- 
ately I  do  not  mean  that  it  was  three  or  even  two  lines  pre- 
ceding it,  but  absolutely  next  to  it — Donohue  made  this  answer : 

The  first  thing  I  heard  down  there,  I  heard  that  Mr.  Hopkins  was 
trying  to  buy  some  votes ;  that  is  what  I  first  heard. 

I  regret  to  find  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  is  willing  to 
use  Donohue's  testimony  to  create  in  the  minds  of  Senators  a 
belief  that  money  was  being  used  to  elect  LORIMER,  and  yet  is  at 
the  same  time  willing  to  suppress  the  testimony  which  shows 
that  the  same  loose  accusations  were  made  against  Hopkins. 
Without  intending  to  suggest  that  Donohue  is  other  than  an 
honest  man  and  a  truthful  witness,  his  own  testimony  abun- 
dantly shows  that  he  was  one  of  those  gentleman  who  are  too 
often  ready  to  suspect  the  integrity  of  men  without  sufficient, 
and,  indeed,  without  any  positive,  information.  Mr.  Donohue's 
testimony,  which  the  Senator  from  New  York  did  not  read,  so 
forcibly  illustrates  how  much  these  charges  were  based  upon 
mere  suspicion  and  how  little  they  were  based  upon  any  tangi- 
ble proof  that  I  think  it  worth  my  while  to  read  several  of  the 
80595 — 9673 


45 

other  answers  which  he  made  to  pertinent  questions.  They  ap- 
pear on  page  523  of  the  testimony,  and  are  as  follows : 

Judge  HANECY.  Did  you  ever  have  such  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
Groves? — A.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  such  conversation.  I  may  have 
had  it,  because,  as  I  say,  I  was  very  much  wrought  up  as  to  what  was 
happening  down  there,  and  might  have  said  that  in  reply  to  what  Mr. 
Groves  said.  I  will  not  say  yes  or  no  on  that  question ;  I  might  have 
said  that.  If  I  did  say  it,  it  was  a  remark,  a  mere  inference  of  what 
transpired,  and  had  reference,  if  I  did  say  it,  had  reference  to  Lee 
O'Neil  Browne's  speech,  because  I  replied  to  his  speech,  and  we  were 
bitter  toward  each  other  ;  that  is  all. 

Q.  If  you  did  say  thai,  or  that  in  substance,  or  anything  like  it,  Mr. 
Donohue,  was  there  anything  to  sustain  it  except  your  general  anger 
at  the  conditions  as  they  existed  there? — A.  Well,  not — I  did  not  state 
only  just  on  account  of  the  conditions  as  they  existed  there  ;  yes. 

Q.  Were  any  of  these  conditions  the  presence  of  money  that  you 
knew  of,  or  offering  of  money  by  anybody? — A.  No. 

Q.  Or  offer  of  anything  of  value  by  anybody  ? — A.    No. 

Q.  For  a  vote  for  WILLIAM  LORIMER  for  United  States  Senator? — A. 
Nothing  that  I  know  of,  positively,  by  way  of  money  or  other  things  of 
value.  It  was  just  said  from  the  general  appearance  of  things,  an  in- 
ference I  used  from  what  was  done. 

Q.  And  you  said  you  were  angry  because A.  Well,  we  were  not 

very  friendly,  Mr.  Browne  and  I ;  we  did  not  agree  all  through  th« 
session :  do  not  agree  as  yet. 

Q.  You  were  not  one  of  the  Browne  faction? — A.   No;  I  was  not,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  one  of  the  Tippet  ? — A.   No  ;  I  was  not  one  of  the  Tippet. 

Q.  I  believe  you  were  unattached  there? — A.  I  was  placed  in  neither 
one  of  them. 

Senator  BURROWS.      Is   that  all? 

Judge  HANECY.     That  is  all. 

Senator  GAMBLE.  You  were  acting  on  your  own  responsibility? — A. 
Yes.  sir. 

Senator  FRAZIER.  Mr.  Donohue,  if  you  say  you  made  that  statement, 
which  was  based  on  facts,  conditions,  and  circumstances  surrounding, 
did  you  hear  from  anybody  any  statement  or  anything  about  anything 
that  money  had  been  paid  for  votes? — A.  No:  I  never  heard  a  thousand 
dollars  mentioned  up  to  that  time,  and  if  Mr.  Groves  said  that  I  do 
not  remember  that  he  said  it. 

Q.  There  was  talk  of  money  having  been  used? — A.  There  was  talk 
of  money  having  been  used  generally. 

Q.  You  could  not  locate  it  as  to  anybody  that  said  be  got  it ;  you 
didn't  know  of  anybody  ? — A.  No  ;  I  didn't  know  of  anybody  that  got  it. 

I  do  not  believe  that  I  err  when  I  say  that  many  people  in 
this  country  believe  that  bribery  is  frequent  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  as  well  as  in  the  Senate;  but,  sir,  every  man 
here  knows  that  such  a  belief  is  utterly  unfounded,  for  amongst 
the  many  thousands  of  men  who  have  served  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment in  the  House  and  in  the  Senate  since  it  was  organized, 
the  bribe  takers  and  the  bribe  givers  could  almost  be  counted 
on  «the  fingers  of  a  single  hand.  As  we  know,  sir,  that  thou- 
sands accuse  Congress  unjustly,  may  we  not  suppose  that  thou- 
sands have  also  unjustly  accused  the  legislatures  of  these  States? 
I  do  not  say  that  corruption  in  the  various  legislatures  is  as 
rare  as  it  is  in  Congress,  and  naturally  that  would  not  be  true, 
because  the  people  choose  men  of  more  exalted  character  and*  of 
greater  ability  for  these  higher  places.  But,  sir,  the  people  know 
the  men  whom  they  elect  to  their  State  legislatures,  and  they 
are  not  apt  to  choose  a  bribe  taker  from  among  their  neighbors 
to  represent  them.  That  they  do  sometimes  make  that  mistake 
in  Illinois  is  as  certain  as  that  they  have  made  it  in  New  York. 
The  indictment  of  the  Senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  ROOT] 
and  the  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  BURTON]  is  against  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Illinois.  If  her  legislature  is  as  corrupt  as  they 
charge  it  with  being,  then,  sir,  the  legislature  is  not  alone  in 
that  condition,  and  the  people  •  themselves  must  be  corrupt; 
because,  in  the  face  of  these  charges  and  with  the  evidence  of 
the  criminal  trials  before  them,  the  Democrats  renominated 
80595—9673 


46 

and  the  people  re-elected  Browne  to  the  legislature.  Robert  E. 
Wilson,  the  man  charged  with  distributing  the  corruption  fund 
at  St.  Louis  on  the  second  occasion,  was  renominated  by  the 
Democratic  party  and  re-elected  by  the  people  of  his  district; 
and  John  Broderick,  the  senator  who  was  charged  with  bribing 
Hoktlaw,  was  renominated  and  re-elected  to  the  State  senate ; 
Speaker  Shurtleff,  who  was  also  active  in  LORIMER'S  'behalf, 
was  re-elected  to  the  legislature ;  and  an  indictment  against 
them,  sir,  is  an  indictment  against  their  people. 

In  the  beginning  of  his  speech  the  Senator  from  New  York 
classed  Shurtleff  as  one  of  the  trinity  of  bribers  and  corrup- 
tionists,  linking  him  with  LORIMER  and  Browne;  but  though  he 
continued  and  accentuated  his  invective  against  LORIMER  and 
Bro'.vne  he  said  little  more  about  Shurtleff.  The  Senator  from 
New  York  sits  so  near  the  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  BURTON], 
whose  close  connection  Shurtleff  is,  that  I  wonder  if  that  re- 
strained him.  [Laughter.] 

When  the  Senator  from  New  York  denounces  Browne,  he 
ought  to  remember  Jotham  Allds,  who  was  not  the  leader  of  a 
minority,  divided  into  factions  of  almost  equal  strength,  as 
Browne  was;  but  the  leader  of  his  party  in  the  State  senate 
of  New  York.  He  was  charged  with  receiving  bribes,  and  they 
proved  that  he  was  guilty  by  the  admission  of  Senator  Conger 
that  he  was  himself  a  bribe  giver ;  and  both  this  bribe-taking 
Senator  Allds  and  this  bribe-giving  Senator  Conger  were  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  which  elected  the  Senator  from  New  York 
to  this  body. 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  impeach  the  right  of  the  Senator  to  his 
seat  upon  such  a  circumstance  as  that.  I  do  not  invoke  against 
him  the  doctrine  which  he  urges  against  the  Senator  from 
Illinois ;  and  yet,  sir,  if  we  are  to  accept  his  theory  that  a 
little  corruption  found  is  but  the  index  of  a  larger  corruption 
which  can  not  be  uncovered,  we  might  be  compelled  to  say 
that  the  New  York  legislature  was  as  little  capable  of  conduct- 
ing an  honest  senatorial  election  as  the  Legislature  of  Illinois. 

The  strangest  contention  in  all  of  this  controversy  to  me  has 
been  the  assertion  made  and  repeated  by  the  Senator  from  Idaho 
[Mr.  BORAH],  the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  CUMMINS],  and  the 
Senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  ROOT]  that  in  demanding  the  total 
exclusion  of  a  dishonest  vote  I  was  reallygiving  effect  to  such  votes. 

That  charge,  sir,  can  be  sustained  against  their  position,  but 
not  against  mine.  Let  me  analyze  it  and  see  if  I  can  not  make 
it  plain  that  it  is  their  rule  which  permits  a  dishonest  vote  to 
exert  some  influence  over  an  election  and  to  defeat  the  will  of 
an  honest  majority.  I  will  use  the  very  case  before  us  as  an 
illustration.  Let  us  assume  that  the  four  legislators  who  testi- 
fied* that  they  received  money  were  bribed,  although  they  did 
not  all  testify  that  they  received  money  for  the  vote  which  they 
cast  for  LORIMER;  and  let  us  also  assume  that  the  three  men 
who  are  charged  with  having  paid  that  money  were  likewise 
bribed.  Let  us  go  even  one  step  further,  and  say  that  Clark. 
Luke,  Shephard  and  De  Wolf  were  bribed,  thus  making  a  total 
of  11  votes  to  be  rejected  on  the  ground  of  bribery.  With  these 
men  eliminated  there  is  absolutely  no  word  of  testimony  im- 
peaching the  integrity  of  any  other  member  of  the  legislature, 
and  unless  we  are  ready  to  say  that  all  men  are  corrupt  simply 
because  some  men  have  been  shown  to  be  corrupt,  we  must  as- 
sume that  the  Illinois  legislators  against  whom  no  evidence  has 
80595—9673 


47 

been  introduced  and  against  whom  not  even  a  suspicion  has  been 
suggested  were  upright  and  patriotic  men.  Subtracting  these  11 
votes  from  a  total  of  202  we  have  an  unchallenged  membership 
of  191  members  who,  by  virtue  of  their  position  and  of  their 
integrity,  were  qualified  to  elect  a  Senator.  Of  this  191  mem- 
bers, 96  would  be  a  majority,  and  after  deducting  every  vote 
against  which  the  imputation  of  dishonesty  has  been  made 
LORIMER  would  still  have  97  as  against  94  votes  for  his  oppo- 
nents. Under  those  circumstances  no  man  could  deny  that  he  is 
entitled  to  his  seat  in  this  Senate  as  a  matter  of  law,  and  still 
less  can  they  deny  it  as  a  matter  of  morals,  because  he  had  a 
clear  majority  of  the  honest  men  in  the  legislature.  Now,  sir, 
let  us  apply  the  rule  proposed  by  the  Senators  from  Idaho, 
Iowa  and  New  York,  and  what  result  do  we  reach?  By  includ- 
ing these  11  men  as  a  part  of  the  total  vote,  they  prevent  97 
honest  men  from  effecting  an  election  over  94  honest  men,  and 
this  makes  it  plain  that  they  are  the  gentlemen  who  are  giving 
effect  to  the  votes  of  rascals,  because  by  including  those  11 
votes  in  the  total  they  thus  prevent  an  honest  majority  from 
working  out  its  will. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  eacy  for  a  man  to  proclaim  himself  an 
advocate  of  electoral  integrity,  and  if  he  will  make  that  procla- 
mation often  enough  and  loud  enough  he  can  induce  thousands 
of  heedless  men  to  accept  it;  but  the  thoughtful  citizens  of  this 
Republic  will  at  last  judge  every  rule  by  its  result,  and  they 
can  never  be  persuaded  to  approve  one  which  gives  significance 
and  power  to  dishonest  votes.  I  do  not  doubt  the  ultimate 
wisdom  of  our  people  and  neither  do  I  doubt  that  they  will 
understand  at  last  that  the  law,  as  I  have  sought  to  explain 
and  defend  it,  is  their  best  protection  against  the  baleful  influence 
of  the  corruptionists  in  our  politics.  No  matter  how  honest 
and  how  patriotic  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  may  be — and 
I  know  them  to  be  as  honest  and  as  patriotic  as  I  am — it  is  still 
true,  sir,  that  in  striving  to  reverse  the  precedents  of  the  Senate 
and  overrule  the  courts  of  the  country  they  are  seeking  to  estab- 
lish a  doctrine  that  will  permit  a  dishonest  faction  in  a  legisla- 
ture to  disable  an  honest  majority  from  choosing  a  Senator  to 
represent  their  State. 

THE    SENATE   ON    TRIAL. 

They  tell  me  that  the  Senate  is  on  trial  before  the  American 
people  and  that  we  can  only  acquit  ourselves  by  convicting 
LORIMER.  How  low  we  have  fallen  in  the  estimation  of  those 
who  believe  that  such  an  appeal  can  control  us  in  a  case  like 
this !  Are  we  at  liberty  to  consult  our  political  safety  in  de- 
ciding a  case  involving  more  than  property,  more  than  liberty, 
more  than  life  itself,  because  it  involves  the  character  of  a 
fellow  man?  An  honest  man  values  his  good  name  above  all  the 
gold  that  ^misers  have  ever  hoarded  since  creation's  dawn;  a 
proud  man  would  go  to  prison  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice 
rather  than  have  his  honor  forever  sullied ;  a  brave  man  would 
die  upon  the  battle  field  and  be  buried  with  the  honors  of  war 
rather  than  to  see  the  name  his  children  must  bear  tarnished1 
to  the  end  of  time.  Other  Senators  may  be  willing  to  prove 
that  they  are  clean  by  washing  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  an 
innocent  man,  but  I  am  not.  [Applause  in  the  galleries.] 
Shall  we  prove  that  we  are  not  guilty  by  finding  that  this  man 
is?  Oh,  sir,  what  a  lesson  to  teach  our  children!  I  will  not, 
bv  mv  example,  lead  my  boy  to  bow  in  servile  adulation  un- 
80595—9673 


48 

til  he  kisses  the  very  ground  on  which  the  people  walk  and 
then  insult  their  intelligence  by  telling  them  that  he  has  done 
wrong  to  please  them. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  profess  to  be  indifferent  to  the  opinion 
of  my  countrymen.  I  value  the  good  will  of  the  people  of 
Texas  as  much  as  any  man  who  has  ever  enjoyed  their  favor, 
and  perhaps  I  have  a  better  reason  for  it,  because  they  have 
done  more  for  me,  according  to  my  poor  merits,  than  they  have 
done  for  others.  I  went  among  them  a  mere  boy  and  a  total 
stranger  to  them,  without  friends,  without  wealth,  and  without 
influential  connections,  but  generously  they  took  me  by  the 
hand  and  made  me  all  I  am  and  all  that  I  ever  hope  to  be. 
For  that  I  love  them  with  an  affectionate  gratitude;  for  that 
I  will  toil  for  them  by  day  and  by  night ;  for  that  I  will 
sacrifice  my  personal  comfort,  my  personal  interest,  and  my 
physical  strength,  and  count  it  a  privilege  to  do  so;  but,  sir, 
even  for  that,  I  will  not  violate  my  oath  of  office  and  cor- 
rupt my  conscience  with  a  sense  of  foul  injustice.  They  have 
their  _  impressions  of  this  case,  and  it  may  be  that  those  im- 
pressions are  at  variance  with  the  vote  which  I  am  about  to 
cast,  but  they  would  hold  me  unworthy  to  be  their  Senator  if 
they  were  not  willing  to  trust  me  to  do  what  a  conscientious 
study  of  the  testimony  and  the  law  in  this  case  commands.  If 
there  is  any  Senator  here  whose  vote  is  influenced  in  this  case 
by  the  fear  that  he  will  displease  his  people,  he  has  less  re- 
spect for  his  constituents  than  I  have  for  mine. 

If,  sir,  the  Senate  is  on  trial  before  the  American  people,  how 
will  they  make  up  their  verdict?  There  are  more  than  20,000,000 
voters  in  thjs  Republic  and  not  20,000  of  them  have  ever  read 
a  line  of  this  testimony  or  examined  the  law  of  this  case  for  a 
single  hour.  Mr.  President,  the  Senate  may  be  on  trial,  but  if  it 
is,  its  courage  and  not  its  integrity  is  being  tested.  Nobody  but 
fools  believe  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  dishonest, 
and  nobody  except  sham  reformers  pretend  to  believe  it.  Ven- 
ality, sir,  is  not  a  sin  of  the  American  Senate,  and  it  never  will 
be  until  the  American  people  have  become  a  venal  race.  Our 
people,  intelligent  and  patriotic  as  they  are,  will  make  mistakes 
in  the  choice  of  their  great  officers.  They  have  made  them, 
and  they  will  make  them  again,  but  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past, 
the  occasions  on  which  they  make  them  will  be  rare,  indeed, 
and  it  will  happen  as  seldom  in  the  years  to  come  as  it  has  in 
the  years  that  have  passed  and  gone  that  they  will  bestow  a  sen- 
atorship  upon  any  man  who  will  practice  on  others,  or  on  whom 
others  can  practice,  the  vulgar  and  degrading  vice  of  bribery. 

No,  sir,  I  do  not  doubt  the  integrity  of  the  Senate,  but  can- 
dor compels  me  to  say  that  I  do  sometimes  doubt  its  courage, 
and  I  know  that  this  Republic  is  menaced  more  by  cowardice 
than  by  corruption.  I  would  scorn  to  call  upon  my  .colleagues 
here  to  vote  in  such  a  way  as  to  shield  themselves  from  the 
charge  of  dishonesty,  because  proud  and  sensitive  men  would 
resent  that  suggestion,  but  I  do  beg  them  to  be  brave  enough, 
now  and  at  all  times,  to  do  justice  to  every  man  and  to  do 
justice  in  _all  things.  Let  us  by  our  verdict  say  te  those  who 
seek  to  drive  us  that  we  hold  ourselves  so  high  above  suspicion  |  |Q"7 

that  we  dare  to  do  what  we  believe  is  right  and  leave  the  conse- 
quences to  God  and  to  our  countrymen.  [Applause  in  the 
galleries.]  ^&&<*^ 

80595 — 9673  °^sS|§^>  33 


